justice department agents and prosecutors. i will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked. the men and women of the fbi and the justice department are dedicated, patriotic, public servants. >> attorney general merrick garland defending the fbi amid attacks from the far right that has made the fbi face a lot of threats of violence. how conspiracy theories and disinformation likely fueled a deadly standoff involving the fbi in ohio. >> by the way, this is something we were warning about yesterday and the day before. and what former president trump said late lastunsealing o warrant, among new reporting that nuclear documents were among the materials the fbi sought while searching his home. good morning. welcome to "morning joe." it is friday, august 12th.

what a week. with us, we have pulitzer prize winning columnist and associate editor of "the washington post," eugene robinson with us. and columnist and associate editor for "the washington post," david ignatius, will join us in a moment. joe, just a reminder of why the justice department might be a little concerned about nuclear secrets knocking around mar-a-lago. there was the time that trump spilled highly classified information to russia's foreign minister. or when he tweeted a highly classified satellite photo of an iranian space facility. or when he sided with the kremlin over america's own intelligence agencies. >> my people came to me, dan coats came to me and some others, they said they think it's russia. i have president putin. he just said it's not russia. i will say this, i don't see any reason why it would be. >> yeah. so with that in mind, we begin

with new information on the fbi's search of donald trump's home in florida. people familiar with the investigation tell "the washington post" that classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items agents were searching for on monday. the sources did not disclose any additional details about the type of documents or if any were recovered. here's reaction from the trump attorney who was at mar-a-lago during the search. >> is it your understanding that there were not documents related to our nuclear capabilities or nuclear issues that had national security implications in the president's possession when the agents showed up at mar-a-lago? >> that's correct. i don't believe they were. if they thought they were -- >> do you know for a fact? do you know for a fact they were, or have you spoken to the president about it? >> i have not specifically spoken to the president about

what nuclear materials may or may not have been in there. i do not believe there were any in there. >> sweet jesus. >> oh, my god. >> i haven't talked to my client about whether he'd illegally removed nuclear secrets from the white house and taken them down to his country club illegally in florida. you didn't ask the president that question? i mean, listen, this is a guy who has had contempt for classified information. of course, he attacked hillary clinton for her emails. >> and all those people -- >> but as we saw time and again, showed that he had contempt for classified information. you know, "the washington post" this morning is saying that garland called trump's bluff yesterday, but i think it's more than that. he called out, with his just the facts, ma'am, approach, he

called out donald trump's bluster. he called out donald trump's bluster and his lies, his b.s. you just get the sense that, from the start of this, trump has known that he is a corrupt politician who has been cornered. so what has he done? he's refused to release the documents. he could have released the documents at any time. instead, he's been whipping up a frenzy against the fbi and against law enforcement officers. we saw the consequences of that yesterday, most likely, if the reporting is correct. sure enough, just as i've been warning on this show every day, the irresponsible voices on the trump right are ginning up hatred against our fbi, against law enforcement agents, against

the very people that they once claimed to support. and while they're whipping them into this frenzy, they're putting the lives -- they're putting targets on the back of fbi agents. they know who they are. and they were still doing it last night on tv, even after somebody tried to break into the fbi bureau in ohio. >> yeah. >> and cause harm to agents. >> and the person is deceased now. >> yeah, the person is deceased now because he was whipped into a frenzy by these conspiracy theories. >> ties to january 6th. >> just like january 6th. so you look at all of this, and, david ignatius, you look at the possibility that nuclear secrets may be involved here, and the fact that trump's own lawyer

says, "oh, i don't know, maybe nuclear secrets were stolen from the white house and taken down to mar-a-lago illegally." but whatever it is, we understand from the doj that it was obviously so critical, that they felt like they had to move immediately. >> joe, we still don't know, obviously, the details. we're hoping that the search warrant is revealed. but we do know from trump's own lawyer that the issue involved classified materials. i'm told by a very senior justice official that this search warrant would not have been authorized unless there was a feeling that the documents in question posed a real danger if they were disclosed. and, second, that there had been some effort to conceal or withhold those documents. there was a very specific reason they moved in the way they did, and they moved only after the more informal process of seeking a subpoena, having discussions,

that we now know through the "wall street journal" about conversations that took place weeks before this search warrant. >> your highly placed source at the department of justice said they only moved because it would have caused great harm to the united states. >> geez. >> if this highly classified information got out. also, that donald trump had made an effort, had tried to conceal the information from the fbi and the doj? >> i want to be clear about the nature of my sourcing. i don't mean to imply this is a source who is currently at the top level of the justice department, but is involved in justice activities and is deeply familiar with these issues. this source made those two points. this action would not have been taken unless there is a fear that great danger could be disclosed as a result of the exposure of the documents. second, it wouldn't have been taken in this way unless there was a concern that some material

requested was being withheld. i don't mean it is from the justice department senior officials themselves, but from sources close to them. >> we may actually learn what was taken from the property as early as this afternoon, as well as any suspected violations. attorney general merrick garland announced yesterday that the justice department is moving to unseal the warrant used in monday's search. the judge ruled the doj's motion to unseal must be presented to trump's lawyers, who have until 3:00 p.m. today to agree with or oppose the motion to unseal the unseal only the warrant and an inventory of items seized by the fbi during the search of mar-a-lago, and not the affidavit of probable cause. which would detail how authorities believe a crime was likely committed and why there would be evidence of that crime at trump's florida home.

late last night, the former president took to his social media company to respond, writing, in part, not only will i not oppose the release of documents, i'm going a step further by encouraging the immediate release of those documents. >> wait, i'm confused. >> okay, we're going to see. >> i'm confused. >> let's see it. >> gene robinson, i'm so confused. >> me, too. >> donald trump says, i'm going a step further by encouraging the immediate release. >> yeah. >> that's like me encouraging the department of justice to announce to the world what cereal is contained in my kitchen. i know what cereal is in my kitchen. i've got that information. i could let america know right now. donald trump has had this warrant for days while he's been demagoguing, while he has been spreading hatred, while he's been putting targets on the backs of fbi agents, by letting his people go around and spread

hatred and lies about the fbi. he's had the warrant. harold ford jr. yesterday on fox said that he had been lying to his friends and people close to him and his supporters, saying that he didn't have a warrant. there is this lie i guess they're spreading on fox. i don't know. >> harold was trying to tell the truth. >> that they just held up a document 12 feet away and then put it down. he's had it all along. >> right, yeah. >> as harold said, why in the world would he be lying about something like that? well, there is another one reason. you're trying to spread hatred toward fbi agents. >> and apger. >> and anger and rage that led to what happened yesterday, instead of just releasing the documents. if that happened to you or me, we were innocent, we'd release the documents immediately. >> absolutely. >> hold a press conference and say, "they're looking for this?

i don't have that. looking for this?" he didn't do that. last night, the charade continues. i ask, how stupid, how stupid are some of his followers to continue to believe into this jim and tammy faye bakker ptl club goes to mar-a-lago routine that he is putting on. because he's had it. he's been able to release it any time he's wanted. but, instead, he's decided to stir up hatred against law enforcement personnel. >> right, he had this on monday, right? when the search was conducted, they leave. they present the warrant, present the inventory when they leave of what they took. he's had it since monday. he could have released it on monday. on tuesday, on wednesday. he could have released it last night when he issued that statement. he could have said, "you know what, absolutely right, let's release it. in fact, i'm releasing it right

now. here it is." we'd be able to be talking about it right now this morning. but he wanted to use it to, yes, gin up this anger and this hatred and this energy in his base, which is what fuels him politically. i guess he believes that it protects him somehow. >> gene? >> yeah? >> two words, my friend. nuclear secrets. >> exactly. >> well -- >> nuclear secret. he was asked last night by laura ingraham, "did donald trump have nuclear secrets?" "oh, i don't know. why would i talk to my client about whether he illegally took from the white house top secret information about nuclear secrets?" >> while you're on the subject of people on television, you ask how stupid his followers are.

in terms of those people, they're not stupid. they are lying. >> they know exactly what they are doing. >> they know the election was stolen. they know january 6th was an assault on our capitol, and they are not stupid. they're something else. that's something they're going to have to reckon with in some way, shape, or form. begging them to stop for the sake of our country, have done that before. but this will, at some point, come back. that's all i'll say. they're not stupid. they know what they're doing. other american people who follow trump are vulnerable americans who have been misled by a cult leader. >> right. >> and, you know, this is the sad reality of our country. but these people continue to be misled by those with a megaphone on major cable networks, who refuse to face the truth, even when it is staring them in the face. >> by the way, it is 6:13 on the east coast. we wake up very early to do this

show. it is friday. mika meant to say that the election was not stolen. >> not stolen. i'm sorry. >> get your little slips. >> oh, god, here go the slips on twitter, okay. >> know that the election was not stolen. they know that it is not stolen. "wall street journal" editorial page has been writing about it nonstop. yeah, they're not -- gene, they're not stupid. they know exactly what they are doing. even last night, just fueling do -- >> it was awful. >> just fueling hatred on fbi agents, on department of justice personnel. i look at some of the things these people say, and i say, who is running these companies? where are the lawyers to talk to people on the board, going, "this really is exposing us to some serious legal jeopardy." >> absolutely. it's crazy.

it's like -- people won't like this metaphor. they're like crack heads, they can't help themselves. they can't stay away from this stuff, when they know that, ultimately, it is bad for them. certainly bad for the country. look at what happened yesterday in cincinnati. look at this, you know, diluted, apparently, man, now deceased, who thought he was doing right by trying to break into the fbi and kill fbi agents. because his dear leader told him to, basically. i mean, it is just insane, and it is crazy. this has really ginned up the sort of violent part of the base in a way that -- i can't say it is unprecedented because we had

an insurrection at the capitol -- but certainly not since then have we seen this sort of fervor and passion over what was a totally legitimate action by the justice department after they tried to get these documents back. he's been out of office for more than a year and a half, and he won't give back these documents that, as "the washington post" reported, included nuclear secrets. "the new york times" reports some of the most sensitive kinds of information. they didn't use the word "nuclear," but they said some of the most sensitive kinds of information that our government has. it is knocking around mar-a-lago, which is famously insecure, let alone what nefarious purposes this information could potentially be put to by bad actors. >> yeah. and, gene, you know, the justice department had been working with him. the fbi had been working with

him, mika. >> exactly. >> they've been cooperating with him. they've been trying to get it back in the least obtrusive way possible. it became evident to them that that man was lying to them. >> yeah. >> there is somebody on the inside that was telling them that he had more highly classified information inside of mar-a-lago that he was not revealing to the fbi. >> we'll see what it all shows as documents are revealed, when they're revealed. let's bring in former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst barbara mcquaid. and congressional reporter "the guardian," hugo lowell joins us. thank you, both. barbara, i'll ask the same question i asked you earlier this week. from what we know so far, what legal exposure is donald trump facing, given merrick garland's words yesterday? >> well, we don't know yet, but

i think we might find out today. the fact that donald trump is not opposing the unsealing of this search warrant means that, i think, sometime today, this judge is going to unseal it. what we'll find there is the statutory citation that gave them the authority to conduct this search. i think it'll be revealing. if it includes what is the most serious charge when it comes to handling the documents, the espionage act, that could be confirmation that, yes, these are national defense documents. that would be revelatory. it may be that they use a lesser statutory citation because they don't have to use the biggest hammer to get in the door. but i think that'll be interesting. the other thing we'll find out is this inventory of items that were seized, as well as a list of the items they were looking for. that could be revealing. now, they're not going to say in there the content of the documents because it could defeat the purpose of having classified documents, but i think it'll describe the nature

of the documents, which can be very revealing. we're about to find out how much trouble he is in. >> just how much is what you just said. i'm curious, what are the chances there is nothing? >> i'd be surprised if there's nothing, in light of the strong message that merrick garland gave yesterday. i think if there is nothing, he would have been a little more defensive. instead, he came out very strong, very bold. i guess it is always a possibility, mika, and we'll find out more today. but what's really going to be interesting is what is in that affidavit. that is not going to be revealed today, but it'll chronicle the history where, it sounds from reporting, they did try an interim step of a subpoena in june. nonetheless, trump still withheld some documents. so that goes to his willfulness. it erases any defense he might have, that this was some inadvertent mistake. somehow, these documents got mixed in with him, you know, letters from ivanka, love

letters from ivanka and, you know, photos of his family. the fact that he was asked and refused, i think, goes a long way toward proving that willfulness. >> david ignatius, just showing merrick garland through your reporting, i'll follow up with mika's question, about what is the likelihood that this is much ado about nothing? given the fact that i think most americans are conditioned, both on the left and the right, to hear about the legal problems that donald trump is facing, whether it was with mueller or whether it was with the manhattan d.a., and for one reason or another, he always seems to move beyond it, moves beyond doing other things that would have certainly put members of congress in jail. we've talked about that before in great detail on this show.

what is the likelihood that merrick garland would have taken this extraordinary step, unless he had really good information that he had no other choice but to do this? >> joe, the likelihood is close to zero. sources who are familiar with the justice department, its activities, are certain that merrick garland would not have taken this step unless he was convinced, first that the materials, whether they involve nuclear secrets or other secrets, other special compartmented information, were so dangerous, their disclosure would be so risky, that something had to be done immediately. second, unless they were convinced there had been some effort to withhold materials along the way. i'm struck, as i look at this, joe, by the pattern of trump's sloppy, sometimes willful disregard for rules involving classified information, from the moment he got into the white house. it's just been a consistent

theme, whether it was his handling of mike flynn, his national security adviser, whether it was his initial response to the briefing about russian interference through covert action in our events in 2016, whether it was his behavior at the summit with vladimir putin. you can go through a series of a dozen different instances in which the same pattern exists. donald trump does not take classified material as seriously as he should, and he also has contempt, which he often expresses, for the people at the fbi and the cia who are responsible for protecting it. so i think there is a kind of clear, straight line here. people who think this isn't really a big deal should remember that two former cia directors, john deutsch and david petraeus, were convicted of rules for handling

confidential information. sandy berger was convicted for inappropriately dealing with materials. he tried to secret them in his -- on his person, materials taken from the national archives, is very institution that is responsible for overseeing these documents. it's not as if these things have not been taken seriously and prosecuted in the past. trump should know that. he's a senior official in government. a final point, i agree with what you were saying earlier. trump's behavior initially really does bring comparisons to january 6th. he was inciting people to take action. i'm glad that last night, he said, and "the wall street journal" quoted him, that he would agree to reveal the search warrant and make that public. that seemed to be standing down from the position he'd taken earlier. it is appropriate. i'm glad there is not going to be a legal fight over disclosure of that search warrant. but so much of this was

unnecessary. as gene said initially, he could have disclosed this monday, tuesday, wednesday. i'm glad he's decided not to fight over this, because that means the incitement, the tone of this dispute, may be what will be reduced over the next 24 hours. speaking of january 6th, there are new developments in the missing secret service text messages connected to the january 6th insurrection. "the guardian" reports that top career officials inside the dhs inspector general's office put together a memo to alert congress in april. the memo appears to show how secret service agents had essentially stonewalled investigators. months later, finally admitted the messages had been erased. but trump-appointed inspector general did not include it in his june oversight report to congress, which might have violated federal law. hugo lowell, tell us more about

your reporting on this and why these text messages are so important. >> yeah. i mean, it's really extraordinary. i mean, the career officials, the investigators in the dhs inspector general's office wanted to alert congress to the fact that the secret service text messages from january 6thhood had disappeared. they put together this memo and sent it to the chief of staff, to joe the inspector general at. once that happened, the memo died. it was never seen again. it never made it into the semiannual report to congress. all of this is a potential crime. the inspector general act of 1978 is very clear, if there is an instance of resistance, or a significant delay in turning material over to the inspector general, the inspector general has to inform congress it is not able to do its job. in this case, the inspector

general appears not to have done that, which is a problem. the text messages are so important because the secret service was involved with the events of january 6th. it knew ahead of time what trump wanted to do, go to the capitol. they stopped him from going to the capitol. there was secret service detail with mike pence at the capitol. pence had to, of course, flee from the crowd. i think the january 6th committee is interested in getting message reconstruction together. they're liaising with the secretary of homeland security, mayorkas. >> hugo lowell, thank you very much. barbara mcquaid, thank you, as well. we want to turn now to some of the other stories making headlines this morning. the cdc is recommending that students enter the new school year with lighter covid restrictions. this includes allowing students to remain in the classroom if they've been exposed to covid, simply wearing a mask for ten days if they remain

asymptomatic. the recommendation is part of a bigger plan to loosen safety measures around the united states. after months of negotiations, the house today is expected to vote on the inflation reaction act. the legislation would invooes more than $300 billion to tackle climate reform, marking the largest climate investment in u.s. history. it'd also make major changes to health policy and allow medicare to negotiate drug prices for the first time. in addition, the bill would add a new 15% minimum tax on large corporations. >> mika, i want to go to our two senior statemen on "morning joe." they'll be old enough to remember a cultural reference i'm about to make. so i'm looking at you two, gene and david. first of all, you've been around

washington long enough to add some perspective so all of this, what i'm about to ask you. secondly, you remember the primetime soap opera, "dallas." so, with that as my preamble -- >> i remember "dallas." >> -- let me say, for years, i'll just say myself, i won't talk about you all, i've been looking at democrats blowing an opportunity, running out, fighting each other in front of cameras. this contingent yelling at that contingent. people attacking nancy pelosi to joe manchin. democrats just in disarray. it reminded me of the casey stingel quote when he took over the mets, "can't anybody here play this game?" suddenly, you look at the bill about to be signed. you look at the missteps republicans have made over the past six months. being outplayed by democrats.

i never thought i would say that. being politically outplayed by democrats. >> now, be nice. >> refusing to cooperate on the january 6th committee. just turning the microphone over to the democrats. go, "here, we don't want to talk about january 6th. you guys take this." all those mistakes, gene, it reminds me of the season in "dallas" where j.r. went from being the bad guy to the good guy. it was all too much. i couldn't quite figure it out. now, it seems that democrats are the competent political operators and republicans are the incompetent operators, from dr. oz to butters in ohio to the crazy people in arizona to herschel walker, who i don't think the guy knows what time zone he is in. it's just an amazing shift in washington over the past month or two. >> it really is.

i mean, even the -- even the great mitch mcconnell got outplayed in the senate by chuck schumer on getting this legislation through, the reconciliation process. you know, nancy pelosi is the master of the house. kevin mccarthy is something else. he is not the master of the house, whatever. you know, he is -- it was a colossal blunder, recognized, i think, by everybody except maybe kevin mccarthy, not to participate in the january 6th committee, giving the floor to the democrats in primetime. it has been amazing, and they are blowing what should be a really strong position going into the midterms. they sure are doing their best

to undercut themselves at every turn, in every way. we'll see how it works out. i mean, they still have history on their side, at least in terms of taking control of the house. but if it's possible to blow even that, say nothing of the senate, which they may have already blown, if it is possible to blow taking over the house, it looks like they're going to do it. we will see. it is crazy. >> yeah, it is. of course, a long time until the election. anything can happen. republicans can still have the massive landslide that history would suggest they would have. david ignatius, though, i can't really remember a time, though, where two political parties seemed to switch places as quickly as the republicans and the democrats did. three months ago, democrats seemed to be the gang that couldn't shoot straight. now, the republicans keep stumbling over themselves. >> joe, it's been great to see joe biden and his team finally

deliver on what i think they got elected to do, which is to make the process of government, the normal order of washington, work better again. they were able, finally, to move legislation forward, to move this chips bill, which has been stuck in an endless house-senate conference. i began to wonder about the democrats at that point. they were able to move it through and find a version of climate change, to trim down build back better legislation, that they could get manchin sign on to and get passed. bipartisan efforts that make the congress work again. pass legislation that the country cares about. that's why he got elected. his inability to do that has been driving a lot of people, like me, crazy. it is good in this period right before the midterms that he finally is showing the machinery of government can, in fact, do the people's business. we'll see what the public mood

is. i'm not quite as hopeful as gene that the democrats will roar back into roar of the house, but we'll see. they have a better chance now than they did because biden figured out how to be biden. >> we'll ask majority leader chuck schumer about this straight ahead. he is going to be joining us live on "morning joe." we're going to go live to cincinnati for the latest on the deadly shooting outside an fbi field office. as we mentioned, the person at the center of the incident, a trump supporter, seemed to be heavily influenced bid the rhetoric pushed by republicans after the fbi's search of mar-a-lago. >> republicans and people in the media. plus, more former top trump administration officials are giving testimony to the january 6th committee. we'll have an update on that investigation. we'll be right back.

welcome to allstate where anyone who bundles their home and auto insurance saves. isn't that right phil? sorry, i'm a little busy. what in the world are you doing? i'm in the metaverse, bundling my home and auto insurance. why don't you just do that in the real world? um, because now i can bundle in space. watch this. save up to 25% when you bundle home and auto. call a local agent or 1-888-allstate for a quote today. republicans in congress call them "entitlements." a "ponzi scheme." the women and men i served with in combat, we earned our benefits. just like people earned their social security and medicare benefits. but republicans in congress have a plan to end

so-called "entitlements" in just five years. social security, medicare, even veterans benefits. go online and read the republican plan for yourself. joe biden is fighting to protect social security, medicare and veterans benefits. call joe biden and tell him to keep fighting for our benefits. an amusement park is like whooping cough, it's not just for kids. whooping cough is highly contagious for people of any age. and it can cause violent uncontrollable coughing fits. ask your doctor or pharmacist about whooping cough vaccination because it's not just for kids.

in two seconds, a vacationer will say... yeah, i'm going to live here. only to realize... what if i can't sell my place? ♪♪ don't worry. sell it directly to opendoor and we'll help you buy your next one. aah. when life's doors open, we'll handle the house.

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

age is just a number. and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health. versus 16 grams in ensure high protein. boost® high protein also has key nutrients for immune support. boost® high protein. 38 past the hour. u.s. officials say russia's staggering high rate of losses in ukraine means the kremlin will not be able to achieve one of its key war objectives, seizing the entire eastern donbas region this year. "the new york times" reports, according to the latest american intelligence, around 500 russian troops are killed or wounded every day. decelerating russia's war effort to a grinding slog. >> david, you have a new -- some new report on the ukraine southern offensive. we'll get to that in a minute. first, let's talk about the will

to win, how important that is. i remember reading that at the height of the battle of britain, when nazis were pull pummelling london every night, 3% of britains believed they could lose the war. anne applebaum this morning is going to be here talking about many things, including a public opinion survey that shows 98% of ukraines say they're going to win the war. 91% of ukrainians support president zelenskyy and approve of his leadership. this is a country -- this seems to be a bit of an understatement -- that has been rife with domestic political squabbles and struggles in the past. they're extraordinarily united, and they have the will to

win, like britain in 1940 and '41. >> i'm familiar with the poll anne is going to discuss. it does show about 98% of ukrainians in june saying they think they're going to win the war, up from the month before, then there were only 96% who said they thought they were going to win the war. ask ukrainians, do they think the future is going to be promising or rather promising or not, and, again, overwhelming percentage, above 90% say it is going to be promising. contrast that with the russian troops who have been brought from all over the russian federation. often, these are people fromer . they arrive and are confused. this mission is not what they expected. they've suffered extraordinary casualties. the numbers range between 60,000

casualties and 80,000 in u.s. estimates. at least 15,000 russian dead. for comparison, this is far greater loss of life than the u.s. experienced in iraq or afghanistan. it's just a terrible butcher's bill that the russian army is paying. i am told by my sources that there's evidence of real frustration among russian generals. they're not able to do much about it, but they feel this instrument of the russian military is being misused and highly damaged. the long-range missile systems which have incredible accuracy, they can land on a fuel depot, command and control center, have really bothered the russians and made it harder to organize their offensive. we are entering now, joe, i think over the next several months, an important, new phase in which the iranians -- the ukrainians, forgive me, are really going to try to push the russians back. show not just that they can

defend their territory but they can take new territory from the russians. if they can do that, if the russians really buckle, i think you're going to see some reaction inside russia to those failures. >> and, of course, there has been the eastern offensive, sort of coming to a grinding halt. you have reporting on a new southern offensive by the ukrainians, sort of a counteroffensive pushing south. tell us about it. >> joe, the ukrainians basically feel that they've held the russians to only minimal gains in the east, in the region called donbas. their lifeline is the black seacoast. they need to be able to export their grain. they need to be able to have those ships move out of the port. to do that, they've really got to push hard against the south in the region of kherson, which is close to the black sea, a little east, zaporizhzhia.

ukrainian forces have been moving to that area, moving away from the east, to prepare for this counteroffensive. we saw an early sign of just how devastating it can be when the ukrainians, on tuesday, attacked a russian air base in crimea, which is russians seized eight years ago when they first went into this area. caused significant damage. the estimates from the overhead commercial photographs are that they destroyed nine russian planes on the ground, as many as 60 apartment buildings in the region were rattled. that's a sign, boom, that here come the ukrainians. we'll see how they follow that up. >> david ignatius, thank you so much for being on today, the all the top headlines and analysis. thank you. coming up, the latest following a deadly standoff in ohio. what investigators say might have motivated an armed suspect to try and breach an fbi office

in cincinnati. plus, house democrats are poised to deliver another big win for the biden administration. congressman tim ryan joins us ahead of today's vote on the sweeping inflation reduction act. "morning joe" will be right back. you yo vo: as families struggle with inflation... congress and president biden are doing something about it. the inflation reduction act will reduce costs for millions of families. it lowers the cost of drugs and ramps up production of american-made clean energy.

that means lower energy bills for families, jobs for our communities, and the boldest plan to take on climate change we've ever seen. the inflation reduction act will “bring relief to millions of people” congress: let's pass it.

age is just a number. and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health. versus 16 grams in ensure high protein. boost® high protein also has key nutrients for immune support. boost® high protein. wanna help kids get their homework done? boowell, an internetalso connection's a good start. but kids also need computers. and sometimes the hardest thing about homework is finding a place to do it. so why not hook community centers up with wifi? for kids like us, and all the amazing things we're gonna learn. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities.

48 past the hour. we're going to turn to the fallout from a standoff at an fbi field off in ohio, that appeared to have been in response to the right-wing rhetoric after the fbi's search at trump's mar-a-lago estate. after failing to negotiate with

him, officers fatally shot a man armed with an ar-15 style rifle, who had earlier fired a nail gun into the cincinnati field office. who officials familiar with the matter identified the suspect as ricky walter shiffer. he was at the january 6th riot. this photo verified by nbc news appears to sew him on that day there. shiffer appeared to post to social media multiple times in the days after the fbi searched trump's residence in florida, about wanting to engage in violence. what more do you need, guys? joining us now, shaquille brewster, who is live in cincinnati. also with us, senior reporter for nbc news, ben collins. we're going to be talking about the rhetoric he is seeing online. first, shaq, what is the very latest there? >> reporter: well, the fbi says they are now investigating what

they're calling an agent-involved shooting that began right here in cincinnati at their field office. it is a bizarre set of events we learned about yesterday that started about 9:15 a.m. yesterday. a man walked up to this visitor screening center. think of it as a checkpoint outside of this field office. fired a nail gun, setting off an alarm. no personnel was injured, but it set off that alarm. that's when they say the suspect started waving around an ar-15 style weapon. he then fled from this office and was found about 20 minutes later by state troopers, leading to a pursuit. that pursuit went on for about 16 minutes, then he got out of the car, took cover, and that's when some gunfire was exchanged with him and state troopers there. there was then a 6-hour long standoff. i spoke the an eyewitness who said it was a large law enforcement presence. there was a lockdown in the area for about a mile radius from where that took place.

then one of the law enforcement agencies fired on the suspect after they say he started to raise that ar-15 style rifle at officers. so this is something that went on for an extensive part of the day. it involved not only the fbi, but it involved state law enforcement and county law enforcement. as of now, the suspect is dead, and the fbi is saying they're investigating exactly what happened and what led to this shooting. >> ben, what can you tell us about the man who was killed yesterday? his social media presence and what he did -- what police believe he did, law enforcement believe he did in the days following the search of donald trump's residence. >> sure. ricky shiffer was at the capitol on january 6th. the last few days, his rhetoric ratcheted up. mostly, it was on truth social. there was a person on truth social who said they were going to report him to the fbi because

shiffer had posted to kill fbi agents on site. this was after the mar-a-lago search a few days ago. he said, "we must not tolerate this one." then after that truth social person relied, saying they were going to report to the fbi he said, "bring them on." you knew this guy wasn't joking on. they did not find him in time, though his name on truth social was his actual name, with his middle name in there. they did not find him in time. by the way, he thought the nail gun he brought to that bulletproof glass was going to do it. he posted this on truth social after he tried to file the nail gun through the fbi building. i thought i had a way through bulletproof glass, and i didn't. he said, you know, at the end of the day here, i might be killed by the police, and that's exactly what happened. >> ben, we've been talking the last couple days -- i know you've been reporting on it --

about the extraordinarily reckless language that has been used online by trump supporters, on cable news channels by trump supporters, and predicted that something like this might just happen. i'm curious, over the last 24 to 48 hours, has the rhetoric remained as intense as it was in those first few days when you said that you hadn't seen anything like this since the days leading up to january the 6th? >> yeah, it's remained at this fever pitch. by the way, the people that he thought he was fighting for, he thought he was kicking off a civil war, they called that a false flag yesterday. of course, they don't take responsible for this because it'd interferecomplex. they have to pretend the violent attacks that may come from this rhetoric are not real and not part of their system. but i will say, this guy wasn't,

you know -- joe, i'm in the neo-nazi forums, the really far, far, far-right forums. this guy is not a creature of that. he is a creature of pro-trump forums. that's where he is. back in may, for example, he responded to marjorie taylor greene on twitter. he said, "congresswoman green, they got away with fixing elections in plain sight. it's over. the next is what we used in 1775." that was the rhetoric that was permeating before this raid on mar-a-lago. they view it as a rallying cry. the last few days, they've not, in any way, stepped back from that rhetoric. >> ben, i'm reminded of pizzagate. i'm reminded of the guy that drove down because he believed the lies that were being spread about hillary clinton running a pedophile ring inside a pizza parlor in washington, d.c. him firing off shots, going

inside, then coming out and understanding that he had been duped. it was all a lie. you know, when i see this guy who believes this, it's -- again, i keep going back to my grandmom watching jim and tammy faye bakker, people using her christianity and her love of jesus to get her social security check. here, you've got a lot of people -- like you said, this guy wasn't on neo-nazi boards, but everywhere he turned, the people he listened to and respected were telling him and millions of others, "they've stolen america from you. they stole the election from you. america is under siege." this is the -- those lies, those conspiracy theories, for this young man, it ends in a

cornfield with him trying to shoot fbi agents and him dying. >> yeah, joe, i want to remind you, that today is the five-year anniversary of charlottesville. that's how far that rhetoric has done. it's taken over mainstream parts of this party. this guy over the last few years, since january 6th, was convinced -- he was at the capitol on january 6th, and he was convinced antifa had something to do with it until the day he died. he was there at the capitol. that does not happen by itself. this guy does not come to that conclusion by himself. it's because, every day he woke up and turned on the media, and it overrode the stuff he saw with his own eyes. they were giving him enough of a reason to keep waking up and reverse that reality. >> yeah. >> really great analysis. >> and live in an alternate reality filled with lies, with tragic results. shaq, what are we expecting to hear today in the investigation there? >> reporter: it's not exactly

clear. we heard an update last night, and that's when we had state and county officials lay out the timeline that we just gave you. we saw the statement from the fbi late last night, saying that they were going to investigate this agent-involved shooting. there is nothing scheduled by way of press conference or statements to be released today, especially because we got pretty much exactly what happened. we know the fact pattern. we know no law enforcement personnel were injured in this, no bystanders were injured in this. where the standoff occurred when a pretty remote and rural area. it was essentially on a farm where that standoff occurred. we know they'll still go through -- there's that car he was driving that they'll go through and process. we know that they're processing the scene here late into the day yesterday. we'll see if there is any updates to the investigation, but nothing scheduled at this point, joe. >> my god. nbc's shaquille brewster and nbc's ben collins, thank you, both, for your reporting this morning. we appreciate it. we have so much more to get to on the fbi's search of mar-a-lago. we'll have the latest statements

by the former president and attorney general merrick garland. plus, we now know someone tipped off the feds about more classified documents inside mar-a-lago. we'll talk about that when "morning joe" returns. finding the perfect designer isn't easy. but, at upwork, we found her. she's in austin between a fresh bowl of matcha and a fresh batch of wireframes. and you can find her, and millions of other talented pros, right now on upwork.com ice cream is like whooping cough, it's not just for kids. whooping cough is highly contagious for people of any age. and it can cause violent uncontrollable coughing fits. ask your doctor or pharmacist about whooping cough vaccination because it's not just for kids.

ask your doctor or pharmacist about whooping cough vaccination after my car accident, because it's not just for kids. wondnder whahatmy c cas. so i called the barnes firm. i'm rich barnes. youour cidedentase e woh than insurance offered? call the barnes firm now to find out. yoyou ght t beurprpris

call the barnes firm now when that car hit my motorcycle, yoyou ght t beurprpris insurance wasn't fair. so i called the barnes firm, it was the best call i could've made. call the barnes firm now, and find out what your case could be worth. ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million there were not documents related to our nuclear capabilities or nuclear issues that had national security implications in the president's possession when agents showed up at mar-a-lago? >> that's correct, i don't believe they were. >> well, do you know for a fact? do you know for a fact they were? have you spoken to the president about it? >> i have not specifically spoken to the president about what nuclear materials may or may not have been in there. i do not believe there were any in there.

>> i don't know. i don't believe. i haven't spoken. so you're an attorney representing a former president. the media reports that the former president illegally took documents from the white house, classified documents involving nuclear weapons. >> you can't refute it. >> and you haven't talked to your client about that? that's -- again, it defies belief. >> also frightening. >> well, yeah, it just defies belief. we will see what are in those documents today. we can know right now, if donald trump released them today, yesterday, or the day before or on monday, instead of trying to gin up hatred with the department of justice, fbi agents with lies and conspiracy theories. you know, mika, he continues to

do what he does. of course, he wants republicans to attack the fbi. of course he wants republicans to attack law enforcement officers because that's what he does when it looks like he might be under investigation. attorney general merrick garland says he personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant, which could be unsealed as early as this afternoon. what it will and will not tell us about the justice department's case. with us, we have presidential historian and rodgers chair with the american presidency at vanderbilt university, john meacham. eddie glaude jr. and donny deutsch joins us today. >> we've been talking this week, we've been warning our colleagues at another news

network, we've been warning people -- >> imploring. >> -- on the right -- mika, actually, yesterday, implored, implored them, begged them to stop with the hateful rhetoric, that it could lead to violence against law enforcement officers. itlooks like that's exactly what happened yesterday. the rhetoric continues. what i -- jon, i guess what is so surprising to me is you don't have a steady stream of republican senators walking to microphones, condemning this hateful rhetoric against law enforcement officers, this hateful rhetoric against fbi agents, this hateful rhetoric against the department of justice. in fact, they're doing just the opposite. they're fanning the flames of

hatred that lead to attacks like the one yesterday. again, i always ask you for these historical parallels when i fear they're just really never -- we've never seen anything like this. what are your thoughts? >> well, the scary thing is that we have seen things like this, and it led to cataclysm, what lincoln called the fiery trial in the early 1860s. eddie and i have talked about this off and on, and you and i have, too, joe. is this like the 1850s? do we have these -- this built-in, self-righteous, convinced power that is willing to put their own power ahead of the rule of law and the

constitution? and i do think we are -- i don't think we're going to have the civil war, but i think that, you know, as we've talked about, mark twain is reputed to have said, history may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. what we can learn here is that the burden for keeping this imperfect union on a road, hopefully, hopefully, hopefully to more perfection is going to be people seeing that politics can't just be total war all the time. right? it is a mediation of differences. and my great fear, and what i've sort of noticed, as you've noticed, is it's not just that republicans have not condemned the violence, it's that, on the front end of the week, they went out of their way to come out and defend the former president. right? they electively entered the

conversation, when we all know that law enforcement time is not political time. >> right. >> different kinds of geological. and so i think that the other point they would -- that i think is relevant here, is this is like the mccarthy era early on. you had margaret chase smith of maine, who came out with six other republican senators. mccarthy called them snow white and the six dwarves. they said no. but for four years, four, long years, joe mccarthy had a kind of power particularly over the republican party. where it comes from is what's the incentive? right now, that party believes that their incentive is to play to this dangerous tendency in the american psyche. i think that it is, therefore, incumbent on everybody else to try to keep this constitutional

conversation going. because they have fallen out of it. >> what is -- what is the cost politically to a pat toomey, rob portman, ben sasse, who was just re-elected, mitt romney, who is untouchable politically in utah, and toomy and portman, of course, retiring, holding a press conference, four of the more respected republicans in the united states senate, eddie, and condemning in the harshest terms the hateful rhetoric that is intended to undermine american's confidence in law enforcement? by the way, you and i have had debates over attacks against law enforcement. >> mm-hmm. >> i must say, i've been consistent. i've been consistent that we need to support law enforcement

reform, yes, but we need to support law enforcement, just like i've been consistent with classified materials. yes, i was concerned with "the new york times" stories i read during the 2016 election about hillary clinton and classified information. which made liberals' heads explode. now, of course, they think it is great that the fbi is concerned about classified information. republicans, talk about their heads exploding. over all the horrible things hillary clinton did with classified information, and now donald trump suddenly, when we're talking about the possibility of nuclear weapons, classified documents of the highest classified status being stolen from the white house and taken to mar-a-lago, republicans suddenly are attacking law epi

enforcement officers? there is no consistency here at all, and it ends up being law enforcement officers in cincinnati, apparently, that had targets on their back because of the hate speech from the trump right. >> yeah, yeah. it reminds me -- >> well -- >> -- of a formulation. i'm sorry, joe. >> go ahead, eddie. >> it reminds me of a formulation by ralph waldo emerson, consistency being the goblin of the minds. he didn't mean it this way, but it applies. i was thinking about this all day yesterday, joe. there is the reality around the cult following of donald trump, and then there is the kind of distortion and deformation of a certain kind of idealogical commitment or suspicion of big government that has become, right, this deep disdain for the deep state. and it's the kind of confusion or elision of that commitment to small government and this

disdain for the deep state that seems to have captured, or at least caught the voice of people like ben sasse, mitch mcconnell, pat -- or pat toomey, mitt romney and others. it is this confusion, right? it might not be a confusion. you can help me, joe. what does it mean to have a deep suspicion of the deep state, that then leads to a critique of the fbi, a disdain for the fbi, disdain for the law, turning your back on the blue, all of these others, when, in fact, it originates in this suspicion of or commitment to small government. how do we chart that deformation, that distortion? does that make sense, as a question, joe? >> well, yeah. i mean, it's -- but the same party that has disdain for the state, wants to compel 10-year-old girls who have been

raped to have a state forced, state compelled pregnancy. there's not that much disdain for a massive government intervention. >> right. >> because they're on the front. they want bodies. they want to control little girls' bodies. and you talk about the consistency, sometimes consistency in politics is a good thing. if you think it's bad that a democrat is mishandling classified information, you should think it is a bad thing when republicans are mishandling classified information. if you think it is a bad thing when all law enforcement officers are attacked and have targets put on their back, when it's the left doing it, you should do the same thing when the right is doing it. and the republicans have failed miserably time and time again.

there's no consistency there. there's no ideology there. it's all, as jon meacham said, it is all about power. >> well -- >> and so much so, mika, they don't even give a damn about who win else elections anymore. >> for sure. >> the only elections they're going to recognize, a large swath of them, certainly the trumpers, are elections they win. >> well, and that's -- the conundrum you just put out there, about it being just as bad when a democrat has some improper use of classified documents as when a republican does, on this show, you will see us saying the same thing in each situation. roll the tape. you know, rewind the tape. critical of hillary clinton. everything to do with the email, very, very critical. here, you have a situation where trump's following and his

friends on tv won't cover the story the same way. in fact, they will go to fantastical lengths to not ask the right questions, to twist the truth, to push his big lies. it is dangerous. >> donny deutsch, what is so maddening about the republican response to this is, despite the fact -- and i hope our liberal friends can deal with this -- despite the fact we brought up hillary clinton's emails, in this same time, we're bringing up donald trump's classified information that he's reportedly taken to mar-a-lago, there is no moral equivalency. the two are brought up because what donald trump has done is so much worse, so much more dangerous. the order of magnitude is

overwhelming, and i bring it up to make a bigger point about republican hypocrisy. they were worried about a former secretary of state's emails. they're completely discounting the possibility of nuclear secrets being stolen from the white house and taken down to mar-a-lago and hidden from the department of justice. where are the republicans? where are the republicans? where are the republicans? hold a press conference. condemn these actions. condemn the hate speech. condemn the targeting of law enforcement officers. >> hold back at least until we know more. >> condemn the targeting of fbi agents and professionals at the department of justice, donny. is there not one that will do it? >> the answer is no. and the scarier part is not

about the politicians. a new poll, since january 6th, since everything that's happened, at the end of these hearings, there has not been one inch of movement of people's opinions, favorability toward donald trump. they sit in exactly the same place. 40% of this country would still vote for him. this is despite watching what happened on january 6th hearings. i want to follow up with a question. as far as these documents and as far as now we're talking about possible nuclear secrets, we've been talking a lot about the whats. my question, donald trump is a dishonest, opportunistic, treasonous person, why? why would he take nuclear secrets. >> great question. >> what is his motive? why? sell them, blackmail the united states? you have to understand, this guy, there is no level of depth that he would not go, even at the expense of this country, and we've seen it, for his own personal gains.

why would donald trump take nuclear secrets with him? i want to understand the possibilities. the possible motives, it's frightening. >> okay. we're waiting to see what is in the warrant. we're waiting to see what was there. nbc news has been able to confirm that someone familiar with the papers inside mar-a-lago told investigators that there may have been more classified documents at the club than were initially turned over. so he had some that he turned over already, people, and there are concerns that there are more. that's why they went in. nbc news has learned that this, in part, led to the search of trump's florida home on monday. the news was first reported by "the wall street journal." trump's former acting chief of staff, mick mulvaney, said whoever revealed the information had to be

joining us now, state attorney for palm beach county, dave aronberg. what do we know now to be true, given the warrant that was issued and -- i mean, we're waiting for things to be revealed more, but what can we conclude so far? >> mika, we now know why the department of justice didn't just issue a subpoena. it's because they already did issue a subpoena. they did months ago. kudos to the doj for keeping all this stuff a secret. you don't see that very much. they did, which shows you this is not a political witch hunt. they didn't reveal any of this stuff in advance. we know a subpoena was issued and, yet, afterwards, someone really close to trump, someone within his inner sanctum, spilled the beans. said that not only are there some highly sensitive pieces of information, perhaps nuclear secrets, but where it is, inside the safe. it had to be a credible source. there is no way that garland, an institutionalist, christopher wray, appointee of donald trump,

and there is no way a federal magistrate would be walked into this political hornet's nest unless they believed the secret concerns and the source was credible. this has got to drive trump crazy. he demands complete loyalty from people around him, though it is a one-way street. >> right, definitely certain he is not sleeping well. dave, i want to go really slowly here. there is no reason for us to go past anything more than what we know. so my question to you is, just to really grind things to a halt almost, is it possible they did not find what they were looking for? is it possible that there was nothing there? >> sure. but the fact that donald trump has not released the inventory, has not wanted to release the search warrant, tells me there is nothing there. the fact that merrick garland seemed quite confident in his press conference, saying, "let's release it. let's go to the court and do something unusual," tells me

they think they have the goods. kudos to merrick garland. i owe him an apology because i've been questioning whether he had the stomach for this fight. yesterday, that was a gangster move. i say that in a positive way. m.g. is the o.g. he came out and did something i've never seen before. he put trump in a box. he is forcing him to either agree to releasing the documents he never wanted released, or to try to block it. either way, he looks bad. either way, merrick garland wins. >> so donald trump has said that, oh, sure, release them, but i think we still need to hear that initially from his attorney. that could change. let's bring into the conversation author and msnbc political analyst, annan, good to have you on this morning. >> good to be here. >> joe, the backdrop to the information we now so far, and i keep trying to back up, back up, back up, because we don't know what was in there yet. >> we don't know yet. >> but rhetoric surrounding all

of this. >> terrible. >> it's got a lot of echoes of january 6th. >> oh, yeah, no doubt about it. and we're seeing the consequences of that. if the hate speech continues on certain cable news channels, and if the hate speech continues online from people who are making millions and millions of dollars off of the hate speech, directing hatred toward law enforcement officers, it'll continue. so what is this, chapter 14, chapter 15 in our ongoing conversation about -- >> volume 3. >> yeah, exactly. will the institutions hold? you know, we go back and forth. think we both agree we were right on some points, wrong on some points. when i was saying calmly the institutions would hold and you had doubts about it. i'll be the first to admit, i was getting impatient with merrick garland.

asked on this show a couple weeks ago whether he was asleep at the switch. because here, we have a president who cheerily, in my opinion at least, and i've read the statute enough and seen other people charged under the statute, to understand that he committed crimes on january 6th. was wondering if the justice department was too afraid of their shadow to actually prove to all of us that no man or woman is above the law. so we're moving forward. perhaps no person is above the law. so i still stand by my original belief that america's institutions are strong enough to hold. i'm curious where you are this morning. >> yeah, well, i do enjoy our long-running discussion of this, going back to 2015. i think, right now, we are witnessing an epic showdown between the rule of law and the

kind of law of power. if you are my age -- it is not just donald trump. if you are my age, you have not actually seen real accountability in american life for a whole bunch of things. you didn't see it for iraq. you didn't see it for 2008. you didn't see it for katrina. you didn't really see it for kind of falling on our face on covid. so i think this is, in many ways, an agepunity that goes far beyond donald trump. powerful people, wealthy people, have been able to evade what ensnares the rest of us. so now, yes, merrick garland seems to have woken up, or at least shared a little more of what was going on behind the scenes. we know that rule-based thing is advancing, has some teeth and courage behind it. but i would say, for now, the law in this country has been that people like donald trump will ultimately get away with it. that has been the norm over the last generation.

i think the fundamental concern i still have is, do the people on the rule of law side understand the fight they are in? or are they still playing by marquee of queensbury rules? they have to in many ways, that's what the rule of law is. this is the paradox. the rule of law is plotting, slow, careful. it is not jazz hands. it is sober to a fault. but when you are dealing with, not a politician who may have committed some crimes by accident, but a kind of mob leader, fascist, autocrat wanna-be, whose criminality is the essence of his pretensions to rule, is the traditional american way of dealing with the rule of law adequate to that? i'm not sure that, if you look at other countries and other eras, that their approaches to the rule of law were sufficient to prevent the rise of dictatorships and other very

dangerous political situations. so this is not just nuclear codes. this is not just a bad phone call to georgia. this is a mob leader who is trying to turn the united states into a kind of extension of his private mafia, and sabotage democracy in the process. it's going to take some serious backbone in the justice department and elsewhere to actually deal with him. >> jon meacham, it's been part of my concern with the response to donald trump and republicans. at times, i haven't thought democrats were up to it. i haven't thought they've been up to it because even three, four months ago, democrats leaders across washington, whenever i'd talk to them, they'd still be shocked that donald trump and trumpists were lying. they'd still be shocked by their extreme measure. this disruption routine, disruption lies and violence,

this toxic brew that donald trump brought into the mainstream of the republican party in 2015 has been there for seven years. and i agree with anand, you'd got to respond to that. don't fight fire with fire. don't fight threats of violence with threats of violence, but you certainly have to respond. if there is nothing but silence and there is nothing but lies, then it seems to me a press conference like the one that merrick garland called yesterday to defend law enforcement officers was necessary. >> i think it was. i think two things. one is, this is not a question of whether, i believe, whether merrick garland wins or loses, right? this is not merrick garland versus donald trump. this is the united states of america, all of its

imperfections, but its ultimate devotion to trying to get things right, in an attempt to keep this experiment going. and i understand that there are enumerable people who think that the experiment may not be worth defending. but the question you have to ask yourself is then, what do you replace it with? the answer to the imperfections of the united states is not chaos, i believe. it has to be a thoughtful and well-intentioned and, dare i say, a good-hearted effort to try to make this thing wrong. because if democracy were really easy, everybody would do it. so this is not paintball. this is not laser tag. this is -- and lord knows it's not 1986 and bob dole and george mitchell are going on capitol

gang. this is an existential crisis for the constitutional system. the constitutional system ain't perfect. but, again, the question you have to ask yourself is, if you want to do away with it, and a lot of folks on the right want to manipulate it into their own machinery of perpetual power, if you want to do away with it, you have to have an alternative. and so i just think that there is a certain sobriety that is called for in this moment. >> for sure. we want to pause the conversation, take a quick break. we have senator chuck schumer standing by on the other side of the break. we'll be right back. i'm a fancy exercise bike noobie. and i've gone from zero to obsessed in like... three days. instructor: come on milwaukee! i see you!

after riding twelve miles to nowhere, i'm taking a detour. and if you don't have the right home insurance coverage, you could be working out a way to pay for this yourself. get allstate and be better protected from mayhem for a whole lot less.

as someone with hearing loss i know what a confusing and frustrating experience getting hearing aids can be. that's why i founded lively. affordable, high-quality hearing aids with all of the features you need,

and none of the hassle. i use lively hearing aids and it's been wonderful. it's so light and so small but it's a fraction of the cost of the other devices. they cost thousands less. it's insanely user friendly. you take the hearing test online, the doctor programs in the settings. you don't even need to go into an office. they're delivered to your door in a few days and you're up and running in no time. it connects via bluetooth to my phone. you can stream music and you can answer phone calls. the audiologist was so incredible she's full of all kinds of little helpful hints i love it. they're a game changer for me. i feel like i can take on anything. it feels great to be in control of my hearing. better hearing has never been this easy. try lively risk-free for 100 days. visit listenlively.com

on saturday, at my direction, the united states successfully completed an air strike in kabul, afghanistan, that killed the mayor of al qaeda. there are more people working in america than before the pandemic began. i'm signing into law the chips and science act. a once in a generation investment in america itself. this is the most significant law our nation has ever passed, to help millions of veterans. >> president biden discussing some of his recent accomplishments. it's been a stretch of big wins for democrats lately. we're expected to see another one today with the house set to vote on the landmark inflation reduction act. the bill passed in the senate earlier in the week after intense negotiations between west virginia democrat joe manchin and majority leader chuck schumer. and the senate majority leader joins us now. thank you very much for being on the show. congratulations on the work to

get this really landmark legislation done. >> thank you, mika. i haven't been on the show in a while. hadn't seen you, so i came here to the studio. i figured we'd get to mix and mingle. i'm here all by myself. >> all right. we'll see you next time. we're really glad to have you on the show, though. i'm sorry you feel lonely. >> oh, it's a big studio. >> let me start by asking you, off topic, because we're going to talk about this legislation and all the different incredible facets and how it got done, and i know you don't want to talk and will not talk about the investigation and the fbi search. not asking you to. i've seen your answer. you don't want to talk about it. >> yeah. >> but i am very concerned about the dangerous rhetoric that has whipped across the airwaves and around the internet, and i guess the part that applies to you is, what do you say to your republican counterparts who participated in this right off

the bat? >> well, look, what i said then and i said now, i was asked, should i comment? i said it is premature to comment until we know all the facts. when asked when others talked about it, i said it is premature for them, as well. they're jumping the gun. now that trump has said that he will release this information, we'll all know the facts, then it'll be appropriate for everybody to comment. we'll see the facts, and we'll see if the kinds of statements that were made before they even knew anything have any validity. i bet they won't. >> well, i mean, again, this is -- i agree with you completely. this is something that we've seen happen with hillary clinton when it came to classified information. now we're seeing it with the donald trump. it seems far more serious. joe, i'll take it to you, because there are republicans on the hill, and i think leader schumer is, you know, careful with his language here, but they're calling for investigations. >> saying they're going to

investigate the investigators. i'm curious, again, the attacks on law enforcement officers, the hostile language, the rhetoric, shouldn't republican senators, shouldn't republican house members step forward and try to tamp that down? >> well, of course. what's happened is, and we've seen this, not just in this area, the republican party has become the maga republicans. the bottom line is, too much of that forty just goes along with this hard right philosophy. the good news is, joe, a good number of, not only democrats and independents, but even now some republicans are rejecting that maga republican party. there's about 20%, frankly, of electorate that is either mainstream republican, non-maga, or independents who lean republican. they're moving in our direction. their only doubt has been, well, we don't like where the republicans are going, but if the democrats stay in power or

gain more power, can they get anything done? i think what's so important is what we've done in the last six weeks. it shows we can get a lot done. i think contrast is a great contrast. you have a maga republican party that's turning off at least a certain segment of republicans and leaning republican-independents, and now you have a democratic party that says, hey, we can do a lot of thing. we can get things done that really make your lives better. i think it is going to serve us very, very well in november. >> before we talk about the contents of the bill, let's talk about the big question, how did this get done? i mean, for a year and a half, we saw democrats debating each other, attacking each other in the halls, running to members of the press, talking about why other democrats were inadequate in their responses or positions or different issues. then you and joe manchin come out and announce you've got a deal. how did it happen? >> i'll describe one word that

helped get this done more than anything else, persistence. we just kept at it. that's who i am. i'm a persistent fella. we had a lot of obstacles and roadblocks and dead ends, but we kept at it and kept at it. we knew how important it was to get something done. even though it wasn't everything everybody wanted, certainly not what i wanted, it is a major accomplishments. it was a unanimous vote in the democratic party. if you'll induge me, i'll tell you one more point that relates to this. my dad passed away in november. i was very close to him, mika. i know you lost your dad recently, as well. maybe you understand this. he's still sitting here with me. he had a difficult life. he had a junky little exterminating business, hated it. he never complained. he was a brilliant guy but couldn't go to college due to circumstances. never resented other people who

might have gotten a better break than him. he taught me two things above all, and they're with me. one, always try to help people who need help. that's one of the most noble things you can do. second, he said, if you know you are doing the right thing and you're sure of it, you persist and you keep at it, god will make sure, as he put it, god will make sure you succeed. that's motivating me, and i think a lot of us here. keep at it, keep at it, keep at it, and you can get something done. that's what happened. it took a while. there were a lot of critics. i tried to just look for the good in what we could get done. here we are, we passed the most significant piece of legislation in decades, maybe since the '60s, if you look at the six pieces of legislation we passed in the last four or five weeks. i think that serves -- it is going to serve us well as democrat democrats, but it'll serve america well. >> historian jon meacham is with us, and he has the next question

for leader chuck schumer. >> senator, i'm wondering, when you look at the various states that are competitive coming up, do you have any sense of what the persuaable slice of the country is these days? you know, we're not an 80/20 country. we're not a 90/10 country. it's always been closer. but someone in your job understands where these margins are because you have to know what your members can do. >> yeah, yeah. >> when we step back, do you think there's 10% out there, more, less, who might say, you know what, i don't want the extremism. i may not love the democrats, but at least they're not taking nuclear secrets. >> it's not just not taking nuclear secret, it's all of it. we've seen a dramatic change in numbers in the last few months, even before this major

accomplishment of the ira. and it is because people felt the republicans were becoming extreme. it is people who had voted for trump in 2020 but were now getting turned off to him. it is not most of the republicans, and it's certainly not most of the people who vote in the primaries, as we saw in the recent election. but it is sort of mainstream, old school republicans, but a lot of republicanrepublicans, independents, are voting democrat. when they see what we've done, it is climate. for elderly people, the fact we've reduced the cost of prescription drugs for the first time, allowed medicare to negotiate, put in a $2,000 cap, all these people who have to pay $400 for a pill and don't know how they're going to live. we got insulin down for medicare people to $35. here's one thing people forget in this legislation, there's a lot of savings for individual people in the energy front.

it's estimated your electricity bill by 2030 will go down $500 to $1,000. alliances are going to cost a lot less. electric cars will be less. if you want a solar panel on your roof, it'll cost a lot less. all of these things are winning over the same people who have doubts about republicans but, as you said, have doubts about democrats. the doubts they basically have about democrats are, can this party get anything done? so i think that the combination of those two things is huge. look, i just talked to two of our candidates yesterday out in their state, in our battleground states. the reaction they're getting is enormous. one of them talked about insulin, and one was talk about power and electric rates. a third was actually talking about choice. but in all of them, the reaction was beyond a specific accomplishment. maybe this government isn't broken. maybe it can do something that

makes my life better. we've been trying for decades to do something about prescription drugs and the power of pharma. here, we have a major and very important bill. again, not everything everybody wanted on each piece, but very important. so i think there is a slice of the electorate, a new slice of the electorate, because of the maga republicanness of that party, and the failure, as joe mentioned, of some of the republican leaders to even speak out against them, that's up for grabs. i think we have a good shot to get them. the way i look at it, if we held the election today, there is a damn good chance we'd pick up a few seats. >> professor eddie glaude jr. has the next question. >> congratulations again on this extraordinary accomplishment. it is wonderful to see, at least in this instance, government working. i want to talk about, you know, aspects of the ira, but i want to frame it in the sense of, you know, you have this accomplishment. you rightly say you didn't get all you wanted to get, but there is also the question around voting rights, a question around

the george floyd justice and policing act. then in "the new york times" today, there is an issue with ira, with black farmers. the $4 billion that was promised earlier. there's some question about wlornt they'll get the money they deserve. talk about that issue in relation to ira and the broader issue around race and the upcoming midterm and the like. >> okay. let me say two things about that, eddie. on the black farmers, of course, originally, we had put $4 billion in the arp aimed at black farmers because of the injustices against them, the legitimate injustices. then, of course, right-wingers went to court and said, you can't do it on the basis of race. nothing was happening. these farmers are ready to be fore closed. cory booker and raphael warnock, who care about this a lot, came up with a proposal that kept the $4 billion in. it talked about poor farmers who needed the help, and much of the money will go to the same black

farmers. should we still pursue in court this decision, which i think was wrongly done by some east texas judge, when he put a freeze on the whole thing, yes, we should. but i think what we put in the bill is going to give some relief to the farmers. we'll keep going beyond that. generally, the bill has a lot of things that are -- that deal with the problems you've talked about. $60 billion for environmental justice. we all know when decisions were made about building highways, building this, building that, they put them in the poorest bus terminals, in the poorest neighborhoods. we have huge numbers of kids in our poorer communities who suffer from asthma. it is estimated by a modeling agency that the number of asthma cases will go down 100,000 a year because of this proposal, mainly affecting people of color. the number of deathings from

asthma will go down by more than 4,000 a year. 4,000 young people who will be alive and have good, productive lives, god willing. we have looked up and down this bill to deal with the issues of racial justice. even going after 8% diabetes. there is going to be a limit for people on medicare, so they can afford the diabetes. stacey abrams said one of the most important thing to do is put a cap or diabetic, when she talked about how to help in georgia. >> senate majority leader chuck schumer, thank you very much for coming on the show this morning. congratulations on this legislation. >> joe -- and thank you, joe, for not teasing me about the yankees. >> oh. >> i was waiting for that. >> about the yankees? i mean, my gosh, i'm a red sox fan. >> i mean. >> one to talk.

>> i was going to say, the only good news about the yankees is they didn't play last night. >> oh, man. we'll take it. >> still with them all the way. >> all the way. >> that's nice, he is loyal. coming up, congresswoman liz cheney issues a closing message to wyoming voters ahead of her primary on tuesday. that is next on "morning joe." age is just a number. and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health. versus 16 grams in ensure high protein. boost® high protein also has key nutrients for immune support. boost® high protein. vo: as families struggle with inflation... congress and president biden are doing something about it. the inflation reduction act

will reduce costs for millions of families. it lowers the cost of drugs and ramps up production of american-made clean energy. that means lower energy bills for families, jobs for our communities, and the boldest plan to take on climate change we've ever seen. the inflation reduction act will “bring relief to millions of people” congress: let's pass it.

america cannot remain free if we abandon the truth. the lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen is insidious. it preys on those who love their country. it is a door donald trump opened to manipulate americans to

abandon their principles, to sacrifice their freedom, to justify violence, to ignore the rulings of our courts and the rule of law. this is donald trump's legacy, but it cannot be the future of our nation. >> congresswoman liz cheney's closing message to republican voters before they head to the polls on tuesday. a poll from the university of wyoming released yesterday shows cheney trailing her opponent by nearly 30 points. >> you know, we're in such disturbing times when you welcome at this republican party, donny deutsch. when you hear representative cheney speak, it seems almost -- she's just stating plain, obvious facts. given the party that she is in, the party i used to be in, with

a -- what she is saying is courageous because it is about to cost her her job. >> there's sacrifice involved. look, donald trump's scorecard so far on ten candidates who voted to impeach him, eight retiring or have already lost their primaries, two have won. we know who votes in primaries, the extreme side. she is a hero who has sacrificed her job for the right thing. unfortunately, she seems to be playing in a field of one or two. you mentioned earlier, joe, and i understand most people are not heros and want to keep their jobs. to your point earlier, about the pat toomeys and ben sasses, those retiring, the mitt romneys who are untouchable, why won't they face that, with no sacrifice involved? liz cheney seems to be operating in a very small universe.

we thank god for liz cheney, and history will show there's a few heros today, and she's one of them. >> anand, we certainly, about the problems of the republican party, the sickness that has infected the republican party. let's talk about the democratic party for a moment. you're a proud progressive. i'm curious what you think about this bill that's about that pass and about the deal struck between chuck schumer and joe manchin and, well, 49 other democratic senators. >> it is interesting that we're talking about the two together, because when you're living through an extraordinary threat to democracy, you kind of have to do two things. first, you have to resist that threat to democracy, which is sort of what we've been talking about. you have to fight for accountability and defend your institutions. the second, very important thing

you have to do is show people that democracy is actually better for them. demonstrate it. not just resist tyranny, but vouch for the system you're defending by showing tangible, material improvements in people's lives. this bill is a major breakthrough for that season season. it is not as much as i would like, maybe by 90%, but it is, in addition to pushing this country to a clean energy future, and doing it in a way that brought a broad coalition together, it demonstrates coalitional, small-d politics that make people's lives better. it's from the squad to the mods. this is a very broad group of people, you know, from aoc to joe manchin, however you define it. they have been, in a way that i think is actually good,

simultaneously at each other's backs and at each other's throats the whole time. they have known when to fight each other, push for high ideals to be remembered, push for change and things not to be diluted, but then they've figured out how to hang together at the same time. you, having been in congress, know, that coalition behavior, if we can't do that, then we're actually suggesting that we just need a tyrant or a king. i think it is important this legislation can happen substantively. also, in defense of the idea that we can still govern ourselves. >> mika, i heard the stories way too many times about the 1990s, and examples of how much bill clinton hated the republican congress. president clinton's chief of

staff, i said, come on. he doesn't watch cable news and doesn't even know my name. if he did, he's hate me. he doesn't even know who i am. he said, "congressman, he knows who you are. and he hates you." of course, we laughed. but there was, jon, in the 1990s, this -- republicans and democrats going after each other every day. it ended in impeachment, just pitched warfare, jerry falwell and other republicans accusing clinton being a murderer with the clinton cchronicles. it got ugly. yet, first balanced budget in a generation. balanced budget four years in a row, first time since the 1920s. you can go on and on and on about the legislative achievements. you look at what's happened with this bill, and you also look at the bipartisan achievements, whether you want to talk about ukraine. it is extraordinary, what

republicans and democrats are doing together on ukraine. the most significant piece of gun safety legislation in decades. infrastructure bill, the most significant infrastructure bill in decades. the v.a. health care bill, the most help that vets have received in health care in decades. yes, we're talking about two things at once. we're smart enough to hold two competing thoughts in our mind at the same time. there is the republican wing that seems to want to undermine american democracy, but there are enough republicans in the senate, also some significant bipartisan legislation has passed. historically, how do you put those two things together? >> yeah. well, it's another example of how, guess what, history works, not necessarily in tandem with

headlines or cable or tweets. so the task that has fallen to president biden, to leader schumer, to the republicans who are willing to react to reality and govern, as opposed to, in my any favorite word, simply more than just performing in politics, as you were saying, you might actually show that democracy can deliver. look, president biden is my friend. i help him when i can, so take this for what it is worth. i know that's what he wants to do. you know, you just do the work. it's not perfect. i love the phrase "coalitional politics." it is always, you know, maybe 60%, maybe 40%, but, you know,

in the 90s, without being sentimental about that tumultuous decade, you know, you look at the eight years. there were, you know, two presidents in office. there was george herbert walker bush, who basically sacrificed his presidency to get a budget deal that then enabled, as president clinton will tell you, helped make that balanced budget possible, that prosperity possible. so you had this -- again, i'm not just -- centrism is not always the answer, right? the middle way is not always the right way, so let me be clear. it was not the right way on world war ii. it was not the right way on civil rights. it was not the right way on slavery. but sometimes, what you do have to do is step back and say, the reason we defend the rule of law, the reason we defend the constitution, the reason we defend a kind of political norm that enables the kind of legislation we have seen, is

because, absent a better alternative, it's the way we move forward. everybody on the right has to ask themselves if they're willing to sacrifice everything to this cult. are they really willing to live with the results, really? because a cult leader can be for you one day, but he can be against you the next. because what matters to him is his interest and not yours. >> so many people who supported donald trump have found that out the tough way. thank you, jon meacham. extraordinarily moving words. >> yeah. >> eddie glaude jr., thank you. anand, as always, thank you. i want to go from the high to the low. >> what? >> we don't have faith on friday. >> oh. >> jon, we need to start our faith on fridays again sometime soon, but why don't we get the hampton social report, since we don't have faith on friday today.

donny, tell us, what's going on in the hamptons this weekend? >> wow. >> well, you know, the hamptons, i think there's some parties. but i don't really get invited to many of them, particularly since i do this show. my political views are unpopular in the hamptons. i'll talk over the weekend and we'll chat because i'm a lonely guy. that's it. >> yeah, never does anything. >> why is he lying? i don't understand. >> forthcoming book, "the per persuaders," due out in november. congratulations, anand. >> glad you got it in the mail. you never know these days with supply chain issues. >> summer reading. that's right. >> right. guys, it is one minute past the top of the hour on this friday, august 12th. we launch the third hour of "morning joe." with us, we have msnbc and nbc news national affairs analyst and executive editor of the

"recount." and the host of the "hell and high water" podcast, john heilemann. let's begin with what investigators were looking for when they searched donald trump's florida home earlier this week. overnight, the former president responded to attorney general merrick garland, asking for the warrant to be unsealed. but will it be? nbc news chief white house correspondent kristen welker has more. >> reporter: overnight, former president trump with a defiant statement on his social media site. writing, in part, not only will i not oppose the release of documents related to monday's fbi search at his mar-a-lago estate, but i am going a step further, by encouraging the immediate release of those documents. saying, release the documents now. it comes after the bombshell revelation of what investigators were looking for at mar-a-lago. according to the "washington post," but not confirmed by nbc

news, nuclear weapons were among what they sought when they searched the former president's florida else statement. the "post" citing sources familiar with the investigation. >> is it your understanding there were not documents related to our nuclear capabilities or nuclear issues that has national security implications in the president's possession when the agents showed up at mar-a-lago? >> that's correct. i don't believe they were. >> do you know for a fact they were? have you spoken to the president about it? >> i have not specifically spoken to the president about what nuclear materials may or may not have been this there. i do not believe there were any. >> reporter: "the washington post" reporting as authorities pursued the investigation, some officials came to suspect the trump team was not being truthful, according to sources familiar with the matter. nbc news reached out to trump's team but has not heard back. it comes after the public statement by attorney general

merrick garland thursday, announcing the justice department asked a federal judge to unseal the warrant. >> i personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter. >> reporter: garland also hinting, the authorities went forward with the search after trying other methods. >> it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search. >> reporter: sources telling nbc news a subpoena was delivered to mr. trump's office june 3rd, requiing him to turn over classified material. at a meeting set up to retreat the documents, the sources say officials asked to see the storage room, and the former president agreed. days later, authorities requested better security and a second lock was added to the room. >> let's bring into the conversation former acting solicitor general and msnbc legal analyst, neal katyal. and chief legal correspondent and host of "the beat" on msnbc, ari melber.

joe, where we stand right now with this is donald trump has put out on truth social that, oh, release the documents. but he has to do that through the court, correct, through his attorney. >> right. >> and may not. then, if not, a judge decides? >> judge would decide. let's go to somebody who wasn't actually playing -- or reading hunter thompson books during law school classes, ari melber, who could answer that question better than me. >> what's the process? >> ari, what's the process now? >> well, shoutout to hunter s. thompson and "fear and loathing." the process, as i understand it, would be that this still goes through the judge. as you emphasized, the out of court statement is interesting, newsworthy but, yes, the judge would consider what the justice department filed yesterday, which was both their argument for release and their reference

that the trump lawyer should have the opportunity, through the court process, through a court filing or discussions with the judge, to weigh in, as well, before the judge finally decides whether to release. >> neal, what are your thoughts about where we are, where the process is right now, and merrick garland's moves yesterday? >> yeah. i thought garland's move was a brilliant, kind of chess maneuver here. ari is absolutely right, that this will go to a court around 3:00 p.m. was the deadline for trump to respond. now, normally, the target of a search warrant doesn't even have any say, joe. it's just the government saying, look, we want to release and get public disclosure of the warrant. merrick had this idea, trump is complaining about this being abuive and the like. will he allow and support the release of these documents? that basically forced donald trump's hand. if he said he didn't want to do that, it looked like he had something to hide.

coming on the heels of him invoking the fifth amendment 440 times earlier this week in a separate proceeding. so where we are now, joe, is basically i'm kind of terrified about the behavior of the former president. i mean, we're talking about our nation's most serious secrets, nuclear, electronic signals intelligence, which is how we intercept communications by foreign leaders and the like. it's not just the intrinsically of those secrets being so valuable to foreign governments and the like, but it is also how we got the secrets in the first place. it is the sources and methods that are so important. often human lives, spies, complex technical capabilities and the like. if a foreign adversary or some for-profit enterprise can get access to those, and we know mar-a-lago isn't all that secure, they can reverse engineer the documents and figure out how we produce them in the first place, jeopardizing our folks in the field and the

like. >> right. >> if these reports are true about signals intelligence, about nuclear secres and the like, there are a lot of members of the republican party who have to seriously reconsider the grave national security threat posed by donald trump. this is as bad as it gets. >> john heilemann, it's fascinating. yesterday afternoon, before merrick garland came out, maggie haberman with "the new york times" said she'd heard from republicans who said that the white house -- or the former president's people had reached out to them and said, "maybe back off a little on the attacks," suggesting that there may be some really bad information out there. last night, we saw laura ingraham push trump's lawyer, almost sort of, wait, wait, are we really -- would he really have nuclear secrets at mar-a-lago? other people reporting that the mood has changed significantly

around republicans who thought this was going to be the greatest launch for donald trump's 2024 presidential campaign. because it ends up that, well -- are kids awake? it's summer, right? can i say it or not? i'll just say, the stuff got real. it appears that the stuff is getting real, real fast. >> yeah. unlike donald trump, i'm not going to plead the fifth this morning, joe. it doesn't seem to have done him any good in this particular week. i will say, yesterday, although no one on this set or in this virtual space that we have, or in any way associated with this show, tends to watch the morning show over on the other network that you sometimes refer to, but there was a moment yesterday when one of the hosts there on the other network started pushing steve scalise in a way where he was talking about, well, why are you attacking the blue so much? you shouldn't attack. republicans are supposed to like

the blue. you should back off. a lot of people were puzzled because that particular cable host doesn't generally push back on republican lawmakers much. it makes more sense if the white house was starting to send out these messages -- or the trump orbit telling their media cronies, hey, we better back off here. we have to start, you know -- we're not in the right place here, trying to inflame all this anti-law enforcement rhetoric. there's going to be some bad stuff hitting the fan, as you point out. look, i mean, everyone is talking about -- i totally agree with neal about the brilliance of what garland did yesterday. joe, you and i had this conversation the day before, should garland speak or not? we were texting back and forth about it. the notion they should stick to policy. garland found the perfect way through that yesterday by kind of saying, you know, i have a little bit of a loophole here on the policy, if we don't speak about investigations. because the former president revealed the existence of the

investigation, i'll go only this far. i'll go so far as to say, yes, we will allow for there to be this warrant. not all of it, not the aft, not everything, not all the information that many people want to see, but a limited release of information. and, you know, call the bluff on trump as to whether he will now stand up and say -- he's going to try do get his lawyers to get in and stop the thing from coming out, which would be a rather devastating, implicit admission that there are problematic elements to what he took. the last thing i'll say, neal talked about the ways in which these documents, if they are what the reporting suggests they are, we have both the two best sourced newspapers in the country on this story, "the new york times" and "the washington post," both suggesting that is, in fact, what these secrets entail and these document entail. it is not -- yes, one giant concern is whether foreign adversaries could find their way to possessing them. another is the possibility --

and, god, perish the thought -- that donald trump, and i say that sarcastically, but donald trump might have thought, you know, when i leave the white house, i'll take everything of value, of potential monetary value that's not nailed down. you can't steal the furniture. it is hard if you are a president to walk out the door with furniture. sometimes you think you can steal documents. apparently, he thought that. those documents, if those are what they entail, man, there is a big nuclear black market out there in the world. those secrets could be worth a ton of money if the president wanted to try to monetize them. i think there is not only the possibility that they might somehow fall into the wrong hands because the president -- because donald trump has no ability to control information around him, but i think there's the other worry, donald trump might try to exploit them in some way. that has to be going on in the heads of some people at the justice department, as well. >> yeah. i've been through the process before on the hill, when i was a member, of getting briefed on

classified information about nukes. it is an extraordinary process. i mean, the entire process, you understand just how heavily protected these documents are. so for anybody, for anybody to take classified documents out of the white house, especially some this sensitive, if, in fact, they are this sensitive, would be nothing short of extraordinary. neal, i want to circle back to merrick garland again. jon is right, he threaded the needle perfectly. he was -- he was a guy who was doing an -- an institutionalist who was doing his best to protect the institution. to go by the standards of professionalism that we want from our attorney generals and from the department of justice. and i thought it was very

important when he kept talking about how they used the least intrusive means to get this information. that they had tried time and again to talk to the former president. they had associated with the former president. they were hoping to be able to do it without a search. but it became evident they had no other choice. i think it is really important for americans to understand. they bent over backwards by being deferential to a man who has shown absolutely no deference to classified material. >> exactly, joe. so when i describe this as a brilliant chess move, i don't think garland was doing it for that reason. i don't think he was trying to be strategic. what he was doing was just following the ordinary justice department rules, which are, like, stay silent until you have to do otherwise. i found time and again when i was at the department, if you follow the justice department

rules, if you follow the tradition, it tends to embarrass the critics. there's a lot of wisdom in those rules. you know, one just really great example of this. garland really busted trump because trump was sitting there complaining, merrick garland, justice department, you did this for political reasons, to put pressure on me and things like that. garland said, what are you talking about? we kept this secret. we didn't say a word about this to anyone. you did this, donald trump. you're the one who disclosed this and revealed it. if this is about us putting politics and pressure, why did we do this in secret? he did it with the idea the fbi planted documents, which trump put on his social media. he said, no, your lawyer was present at the search the whole time. you got a copy of the warrant, copy of what we took and the like. just these nice, subtle interventions by garland, i thought it was as fine a day as garland has ever had. >> let's bring in staff writer at the "atlantic," anne

applebaum. she has a fascinating look at ukraine's united front and its other army. private citizens. also with us, chief white house correspondent for "the new york times," peter baker. "trump claims he's a victim of tactics he once deployed." yeah, the twisting of logic is becoming contorted beyond recognition, peter. tell us more about your reporting. >> yeah. look, let's remember that, for four years while in the white house, president trump repeatedly tried to bend the law enforcement apparatus in the country to his will. basically, using it as a political instrument. he wanted it to prosecute his enemies. publicly, loudly called for jailing of people like, in fact, joe biden, barack obama, hillary clinton. where are the arrests, he tweeted at one point, at his own attorney general. he tried to pressure the law enforcement apparatus in this country to go easy on his friends, on roger stone, paul

manafort, mike flynn. when they didn't go easy enough for him, and they backed off, he issued pardons to undo the work of the prosecutors who worked for him as part of the executive branch. he repeatedly tried for four years at the fbi to make the justice department instruments of his political will. now, what he is out there doing is complaining that it is being weaponized. well, that's exactly what he wanted it to be, he just wanted it to be weaponized for him. of course, there is no evidence at all that president biden has actually done that. president biden hasn't gone out publicly calling for president trump to be arrested, not putting pressure on the justice department to take this action or that action. the white house has said it had no involvement whatsoever in this search at the mar-a-lago estate. in fact, i didn't know about it until it was public, like the rest of us. so, you know, of course, we've long seen with president trump, he has this projection where he projects onto others what he, himself, does or he, himself would do in their circumstances. in this case, the complaints

he's making about a political law enforcement apparatus has a, let's see, certain irony at least, given what he wanted the law enforcement apparatus to do for him. >> anne, we're going to talk about your piece in a moment. fascinating insights into what's happening in ukraine. first, i want to talk about the parallel between donald trump and orban. it is fascinating. you know, people often draw, see patterns or parallels where they don't exist between leaders. but i'm really struck by the fact that the conservative movement's new darling in america is a guy who has absolute contempt for the rule of law, absolute contempt for an independent judiciary, and talks much like donald trump. >> you know what's really extraordinary is that before they knew any details of what

had happened, what documents were hidden in trump's home, what the fbi had done, a whole raft of republicans, from ted cruz and ron desantis, people who are theoretically trump's rivals, began shouting about the fbi, criticizing the institutions, echoing trump's rhetoric. so what we see is almost more than what orban has ever done. we see, actually, the whole republican party now attacking the institutions of the state, the institutions that are meant to make people feel safe. by doing so, they're undermining public trust, not only in the fbi and the police, but also in the electoral system and the political system. this is a classic move. this is exactly what dictators and their parties and supporters do before they undermine the state and before they take power illegally. it is what orban did in the run-up to a series of elections many hungary. it's what hugo chavez did in

venezuela. look at lennon. it doesn't have to be a right-wing or left-wing thing. it is how you undermine trust. any time it happens anywhere in the world, it is seen as a preclude to autocracy or a coup d'etat. the fact it is not just trump but the people around him is extraordinary. >> it is. you bring up lenin, reminding me of steve bannon, who before he got into the white house, he said he wanted to tear down the state, tear down everything. that's what you've seen republicans doing. anybody that would pose a threat to trump's power, a madisonian check on power, they've been attacked. now it's the fbi. let's talk about ukraine. you have a fascinating piece. i saw a number jump out on something, that 98% of

ukrainians think they're going to win the war. this is, again -- i was always fascinated by the fact that at the height of the battle of britain, when nazis were leveling london, only 3% of britains thought it was even possible that they would lose the war to hitler. here, we have similar numbers. >> ukrainians are, theoretically, in a weaker position toward russia than the british were to the germans. there is no body of water between them. what you see in ukraine, and what i wrote about, is an extraordinary phenomenon i don't think we've paid enough attention to. it is not just the soldiers who are fighting, it's ordinary citizens. people all across the country, ordinary people, bus drivers, accountants, hairdressers, people who did all kinds of things in peacetime, are giving their time, their money, their effort to help the soldiers, to

get them equipment that they need or they have, to help the refugees to organize emergency aid for people in all kinds of difficult circumstances, to help people evacuate from occupied territory. you see this being done with a kind of enthusiasm and a kind of organization that i think is -- it explains a lot about the difference between ukraine and russia. ukraine is a grassroots kind of up society, organized from below. it is fighting against an autocratic society, very brittle, which is run by a dictator who tells people what to do. you don't see the same kind of organization in russia. it is part of what gives the ukrainians this feeling of optimism, even in the face of what seems like an extraordinary challenge. >> hi, ari melber from msnbc. appreciate your reporting. wanted to follow up and ask, there was a wide western,

rhetorical embrace of ukraine in the beginning of this. there were some types of help, short of boots on the ground. what is your sense of how the ukrainian people, as you refer to them, are viewing the support and interest from the western world as this has grinded on? >> i mean, we obviously have different views. for them, it's their country under attack. for us, we have lots of issues in front of us and other things to think about. so there's sometimes clashes in perception. the ukrainians obviously want more, faster, as much as possible, and we have all kinds of restraints. some legitimate, some perhaps not. i think, generally speaking, the ukrainians are overwhelmingly grateful. they know that they wouldn't be as far as they are. they wouldn't have been as successful as they have been at pushing back the russians and now taking back territory if it wasn't for western help. they're afraid over the winter when their gas prices are very high and the economy becomes

difficult in the west, they're afraid they'll lose support. but i think, for the most, it's pretty clear that we are getting support to them, and the support is working. the weapons we've given them are being used correctly. so, fundamentally, the relationship is still pretty solid. >> "atlantic's" anne applebaum, thank you for being with us. appreciate it so much. john heilemann, you brought up an interesting point to me about the planting of the evidence. something that was said last night that suggested it'd be very hard for that conspiracy theory to take flight. what was it? >> well, yeah. look, joe, the whole thing has been hilarious, watching in various ways the things that donald trump says get contradicted by his own people. we saw this before when he said, you know, none of my people were allowed to look at the search. they were all locked out. then his own lawyer at the same

time was on television saying, you know, no, i was there. she didn't say it directly to contradict him, but she was saying, yes, i was at mar-a-lago. i was present, et cetera. this one really got me, though. his thing was, you know, they went behind closed doors. who knows what they -- you know, he was the first, among the first, to start that rumor that swept across the right over the last 48 hours, which was planted evidence. the planted evidence, that you saw that among elected officials, everywhere in the media, fever swamps on the right. the sudden assertion, based on no evidence, other than donald trump making up the notion there could have been planted evidence. you saw that everywhere, right? last night on one of these crazy right-wing channels, that same lawyer, i believe her last name is bubb, was on one of them last night, and she was just recounting the fact that donald trump and melania monitored the entire search from new york via mar-a-lago's extensive

closed-circuit television network. of course, you know the trumps have cameras and audio equipment like everywhere at all their properties. they're always watching you. if you've been to mar-a-lago, it's a little creepy. i know people who have stayed there and been worried that the hotel rooms there were monitored. but they have lots of security systems. a full-scale security system. she detailed, she said, you know, there was one point when the fbi said they wanted to turn off the security system, and his lawyer said, no, leave it on. it stayed on. she said, i think donald trump had a better view of what was going on than i did, and i was on the promise. it was an admission that blows the planted evidence thing out of the water. when all is said and done, we are going to look back on some of the assertions that have been made among republican elected officials and people in the fever swamp, with -- they are

going to really have to eat a lot of their words. these people the last week have been saying, you know, why couldn't they just have gotten -- this is outrageous. they could have just asked trump for these documents. he would have given them. why did they have to go to the extent of the warrant? then we learned yesterday from reporting in "the new york times" that there was a subpoena. yes, the department had gone all the way. they issued a subpoena. donald trump defies the subpoena. so all these peoplepeople, why they send a subpoena? maybe some of these guys should shut up for a little while and wait until the facts emerge. every time the facts have emerged over the course of this week, it's made a lot of people look like idiots for things they said 24, 48 hours earlier. >> yeah. neal katyal, final thoughts as we look back on what attorney general merrick garland said yesterday. i think of the words, "without fear or favor" as they move forward in this investigation.

what are we looking for ahead today, over the weekend, and ultimately monday? let's just start in small steps. >> yeah. we'll find out today what happens. will the judge release the warrant? i suspect he. a judge would ordinarily release it anyway, despite what the target of the investigation says. here the target, donald trump, is saying his hand has been forced, saying release the documents. i think we'll see them. we won't see the affidavit, the kind of complex reasoning the government used to justify its request. so there's still a lot that we won't know. but we'll know at least the broad contours of the search, why it happened, where it happened, and what documents they took. now, again, we can't describe those documents in detail because just even the titles of them may be so secretive. but they could describe them in more broad, general outlines. one other thing i'm curious about is the reporting thus far has been what the fbi has been

searching for. nuclear secrets, intelligence. we don't know what was found there. you know, it looks like the department of justice had a source on the inside of mar-a-lago telling them, hey, there are documents about x or y. that's probably what led to these reports of what the fbi was looking for in terms of nuclear and signals intelligence. we don't know what was actually found, which would be helpful. this is serious federal crimes. this is not a slap on the wrist thing. this is as serious as it gets. >> peter baker, we're all awaiting the divider being released. you did deep, extensive reporting, investigating on the trump white house. what new information did you learn in that reporting and that we'll read in the book that might help us better understand what's going to be happening in the days and weeks to come? >> well, i think one of the things we learned in the process

of writing this book, and it is meant to be a full account of the four years of the trump presidency, is there are no one-offs, right? these are all connected. we've seen this week with the former president's attack on the law enforcement institutions is in keeping with his attack or attempt to politicize the military, which we wrote about in our exert in "the new yorker" this week. it is keeping with his effort to discredit other institutions that might stand against him, including mainstream media. throughout four years, long before january 6th, you saw a president who was at war, in effect, with washington. the way things worked. that was obviously thrilling and exhilarating in some ways to his supporters. he used that as a political argument, that i am taking on the system. what he was really doing, of course, was undercutting the institutions that existed under republican and democratic presidents for generations. the fbi, the justice department, the united states military, all of these institutions that were meant to be, if not completely

apolitical, at least removed from the day-to-day partisanship of an individual president's whims and desires. i think that this week, in effect, has reinforced what a difference we saw under that president than his predecessors, again, of both parties who had, you know, some fundamental respect at least for the way the constitution set things up and how our government has been set up over 240 some years, to basically separate politics from independent justice and independent governance of the country. >> peter baker, neal katyal, john heilemann, ari melber, thank you all very much for being with us this morning. >> i think we may keep john around. >> keep him around? >> maybe just a little while. ahead on "morning joe," a story about sacrifice, perseverance, and most after all, brotherhood. at the end of america's longest war. plus, with the house poised

to pass the inflation reduction act, congressman tim ryan of ohio will be here on how his constituents are reacting to the bill. you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back. welcome to allstate where the safer you drive, the more you save like rachel here how am i looking? looking good! the most cautious driver we got am i there? no keep going how's that? i'll say when now? is that good? lots of cars have backup cameras now you know those are for amateurs there we go like a glove, girl (phone chimes) safe driving and drivewise can save you 40% with allstate click or call for a quote today

in the next second, fourteen families will decide... that's it. we're getting a bigger house! finally. but we got to sell this place. before we buy the next place. and then, in the meantime. so, how long are you staying? emily no! ooh a little cramped.

i am cpap man. that is not a toy! or skip the in-laws. sell and buy your house with confidence with opendoor. move when you're ready. that's it. indeed. when life's doors open, we'll handle the house.

let's bring in former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst barbara mcquaid. congressional reporter for the "guardian," hugo lowell joins us. thank you, both. barbara, i'll ask the same question i asked you earlier this week. from what we know so far, what legal exposure is donald trump facing, given merrick garland's words yesterday? >> well, we don't know yet, but i think we might find out today. the fact that donald trump is not opposing the unsealing of this search warrant means that, i think, sometime today, this

judge is going to unseal it. what we'll find there is the statutory citation that gave them the authority to conduct this search. i think it'll be revealing. if it includes what is the most serious charge when it comes to handling the documents, the espionage act, that could be confirmation that, yes, these are national defense documents. that would be revelatory. it may be that they use a lesser statutory citation because they don't have to use the biggest hammer to get in the door. but i think that'll be interesting. the other thing we'll find out is this inventory of items that were seized, as well as a list of the items they were looking for. that could be revealing. now, they're not going to say in there the content of the documents because it could defeat the purpose of having classified documents, but i think it'll describe the nature of the documents, which can be very revealing. we're about to find out how much trouble he is in. >> just how much is what you just said. i'm curious, what are the chances there is nothing?

>> i'd be surprised if there's nothing, in light of the strong message that merrick garland gave yesterday. i think if there is nothing, he would have been a little more defensive. instead, he came out very strong, very bold. i guess it is always a possibility, mika, and we'll find out more today. but what's really going to be interesting is what is in that affidavit. that is not going to be revealed today, but it'll chronicle the history where, it sounds from reporting, they did try an interim step of a subpoena in june. nonetheless, trump still withheld some documents. so that goes to his willfulness. it erases any defense he might have, that this was some inadvertent mistake. somehow, these documents got mixed in with his, you know, letters from ivanka, love letters from ivanka and, you know, photos of his family. the fact that he was asked and

refused, i think, goes a long way toward proving that willfulness. >> hugo lowell, we want to get to your reporting on the missing text messages from january 6th. that's next on "morning joe." we'll be right back.

an amusement park is like whooping cough, it's not just for kids. whooping cough is highly contagious for people of any age. and it can cause violent uncontrollable coughing fits. ask your doctor or pharmacist about whooping cough vaccination because it's not just for kids.

age is just a number. and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health. versus 16 grams in ensure high protein. boost® high protein also has key nutrients for immune support. boost® high protein.

new developments in the missings secret service text messages connected to the january 6th insurrection. "the guardian reports top career officials inside the dhs inspector general's office put together a memo to alert congress in april. the memo appears to show how

secret service agents had essentially stonewalled investigators and, months later, finally admitted the messages had been erased. but trump-appointed inspector general did not include it in his june oversight report to congress, which might have violated federal law. hugo lowell, tell us more about your reporting on this and why these text messages are so important. >> yeah. i mean, it's really extraordinary. i mean, the career officials, the investigators in the dhs inspector general's office wanted to alert congress to the fact that the secret service text messages from january 6thhood had disappeared. they put together this memo and sent it to the chief of staff, to the inspector general at dhs. once that happened, the memo died. it was never seen again. it never made it into the

semiannual report to congress. all of this is a potential crime. the inspector general act of 1978 is very clear, if there is an instance of obstruction, resistance, or a significant delay in turning material over to the inspector general, the inspector general has to inform congress it is not able to do its job. in this case, cuffari appears to not have done that, which is a problem. the text messages are so important because the secret service was involved with the events of january 6th. it knew ahead of time what trump wanted to do, go to the capitol. they stopped him from going to the capitol. there was secret service detail with mike pence at the capitol. pence had to, of course, flee from the crowd. i think the january 6th committee is interested in getting message reconstruction together. they're liaising with the secretary of homeland security, mayorkas. coming up, ohio's senate race is expected to be a major

battleground this november. we'll be joined by congressman tim ryan, who is hoping to flip that senate seat blue. "morning joe" is coming right back.

ten minutes before the top of hour, as we approach the one-year anniversary of america's withdrawal from afghanistan. we are learning more details about how difficult it was to evacuate those afghans who had helped us during our time there. our next guest describes the harrowing struggling to get his former interpreter zack and his family out of kabul. in a new book, the book co-authored by zack, is entitled "always faithful." joining us now thomas shoeman. he served in afghanistan for 16

months. thomas, thank you so much for joining us. this is -- the title itself brings tears to my eyes. tell us about not just the struggle to work with zack and get his family to safety, but many others. >> thanks for having me. there is a process called the special immigration visa. it was designed for our interpretors and our allies who supported us in afghanistan. this program exists because these people face persecution for the service to the u.s. so zack served four years with the u.s. and since 2014 he's been facing threat letters, phone calls, with the taliban threatening to kill him and his family so we created this program to support our allies and that is what many afghans fall into, this basket. >> so tell us about zack and his family and why you think -- how he inspired this book and what

he tells us about the many faithful afghans who helped the american mission. >> sure. undoubtedly, we could not -- we had many battlefield successes in afghanistan. and those battlefield successes were supported by our allies. and zack was one of many who not only helped translate the language, but helped us understand the culture. and zack really did so much more than just translate. he became one of my marines, part of our family and i think that is common amongst the interpreters. so this is book, this story is really about a friendship and a brotherhood that developed in combat and where zack kept his promise and was faithful to us and to our mission, it is my intent as well to try to maintain our promise to him and get him to america. >> john heilemann. >> congratulations on the book. and it sounds riveting.

anybody i've ever known who has been in the military or was a foreign correspondent based in a war zone, they develop that kind of relationship you just talked about with your interpreter. i'm curious about how the two of you worked together on the book. it is co-authoring books is never easy. and how that kind of experience, the decision to write it and then how your kind of collaboration works over the time that you put the book together. >> sure. i thought it was really important to have that alternating narrative in this mem area, where zack starts the book in his voice and then you hear from me. you know, america spent the last 20 years in afghanistan and rather than me who spent 17, 18 months there to try to tell everybody what that country is like, i think having zack in his own voice who was born there, raised there, grew up there, was invested in their future, i think it is important to hear him throughout the story.

we try to make sure that these -- that there is seamless handoffs between the two of us and that was the tough part to have, the transition so it is not i tell something and zack tells the same thing. you'll find that the transition were done hopefully well and that was really trying to find the sweet spot between him and i. >> how is zack and his family doing now? >> they have a very long journey from cunear to kabul, to qatar, to germany, to philadelphia, to a refugee camp in virginia. to minnesota, to settling with some of his cousins in san antonio, texas. so, about a dozen stops along the way but they're safe. and actually they just had a son this week. and so zack has always been american by his ideals and hi beliefs but now he'll have an american son born here is really special. >> thank you so much for giving

a voice to those who are always faithful. that is the title of the book. marine corp major thomas shoeman, thank you very much. congratulations on the book. and coming up, the latest in the justice department investigation into trump. we have new details about what federal agents were looking nor inside of the ex president's floor home and on who might have tipped off investigators about classified documents at mar-a-lago. plus, congressman tim ryan joins us ahead of today's house vote on the landmark inflation reduction act. "morning joe" will be right back.

welcome to allstate where anyone who bundles their home and auto insurance saves. isn't that right phil? sorry, i'm a little busy. what in the world are you doing? i'm in the metaverse, bundling my home and auto insurance. why don't you just do that in the real world? um, because now i can bundle in space. watch this. save up to 25% when you bundle home and auto. call a local agent or 1-888-allstate

for a quote today.

a monster was attacking but the team remained calm. because with miro, they could problem solve together, and find the answer that was right under their nose. or... his nose. a beautiful look at the statue of liberty this morning.

new york city, 9:00 on the east coast, 6:00 a.m. out west. it is the top of the fourth hour of "morning joe." the last hour of the week and what a week it has been. john heilemann is still with us. >> it is been absolutely crazy. and we're going to get to an awful lot this hour. we're going to get an awful lot this morning and i think we're going to start -- and i don't know maybe as we look at new york city, maybe we start by me putting my mic on. >> that would help. >> maybe that is how we start the hour. i don't know. i don't know. >> you got it. >> is everything -- >> you look good. it's okay. >> all right. we can go. john heilman. you're still here, thank god. thank god. >> i'm here. i'm here and i have my mcon and everything, joe. >> that is fantastic. with your time life plate behind you. i love it. and so john, it is very interesting and you brought this up last hour for people that are just waking up on the