good to be with you. i'm katy tur. we have more news today on what donald trump had at mar-a-lago both on the volume of the documents and the nature of the documents as well. it comes in the form of a revealing and rather strongly worded letter from the national archives to donald trump's legal team about the first batch of documents that trump returned to the archives back in january. the letter, which was sent in may, was obtained by just the news and a moment ago the national archives posted the letter in full on its own website. in it the acting archivist of the united states tells trump's attorney why she will not grant the former president's claim of executive privilege and its request to delay sending the recovered documents to the fbi saying, quote, the question in this case is not a close one. quote, among the materials in the boxes are over 100 documents with classified markings

comprising more than 700 pages. some include the highest levels of classification and that, quote, access to the materials is not only necessary for purposes of our ongoing criminal investigation but potential damage control from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported. this letter and what it reveals dovetails with new reporting from the "new york times" about how many documents the government has now recovered in total. multiple sources tell the "new york times" that donald trump held on to more than 300 classified documents after leaving office. some of those as we just explained were recovered in january by the national archives. a second set was also in mar-a-lago and was handed over to the justice department in june. the third were found at the fbi, by the fbi in the search a couple weeks ago. that's the latest on what is being reported from the government about the search and here is the latest on what

trump's team is saying. they have filed a motion to stop the fbi from examining the seized documents until a special master is appointed to first go through them. we'll note the fbi has had these documents and has been going through them already for two weeks. and that the motion, itself, reads as much as a political statement as it is a legal argument. perhaps more. quote, president donald trump is the clear front-runner in the 2024 republican presidential primary and in the 2024 general election should he decide to run. quote, we are taking all actions necessary to get the documents back, which we would have given to them without the necessity of the despicable raid on my home so that i can give them to the national archives. quote, law enforcement is a shield that protects americans. it cannot be used as a political weapon for political purposes. quote, what are you trying to hide from the public given that you requested i turn off all home security cameras?

just the beginning. and on that note, joining me now is nbc news justice reporter ryan riley on that letter from the national archives and what it tells us, msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin on donald trump's motion for a special master. and political investigative reporter for "the washington post" who has broken more stories on donald trump and his orbit than i can count. okay. ryan, this letter from the national archives, which they decided to post themselves, actually told us quite a bit of information. >> it really did and it is remarkable that the trump team was trying to get this out in some sort of fashion because it was exculpatory in some way. it is not exculpatory in any way and shows us several steps that the national archives, the fbi went through to try to head off what ultimately we went to now all the way in august. i mean, the back story on this, which "the washington post" has been reporting about for a long time as well i note is that they

were trying to get a lot of these records for a year plus. this was all the way back in 2021 and then finally these documents in january that were returned to the national archives that included a bunch of top-secret information and information that is compartmentalized and really just like the highest secrets of the government that shouldn't have been in the possession of donald trump in mar-a-lago. none of this stuff should have been in donald trump's possession in mar-a-lago. it's all supposed to be at the national archives or in the control of the national archives rather than in a storage closet at mar-a-lago. it's remarkable they put this out because i think it gives us a lot of info about what's happening here and shows all of the steps that they took to try to head off what ultimately was an fbi search warrant executed on mar-a-lago two weeks ago now, katy. >> i read through the whole letter and i was surprised at the tone of it. it was quite terse.

it was in response to this request from president trump's team that he had executive privilege and got to go before them more before the national archives handed them over to the fbi saying wait on all of this stuff. i'm going to go through it. the national archives said, what are you talking about? this is not your stuff, number one. you can't claim executive privilege. number two, this is national security. and we've got to go through it to make sure that everything is okay. we've got to do a damage assessment as the, from the american government. when you read it, did you take that away or was this just kind of standard wording? >> oh, no. i think this is far from the standard letter. i should also note that the acting archivist probably never imagined when she agreed to step temporarily into the role of the archivist that she would send a letter like this. look, this letter is saying to donald trump something that he should have known quite a long time ago because he has litigated the issue of executive

privilege with the january 6th committee. he knows that executive privilege is not ultimately for him to assert but belongs to the current occupant of the white house. that is one thing that the archivist is saying in no uncertain terms in this letter. but the other thing that she is saying is we are not going to further delay giving these materials to the fbi because, katy, as you note, it will impact our ongoing criminal investigation and we have to figure out whether you have irretrievably damaged our national security as a nation by keeping these in the manner in which they did. so on one hand the tone is surprising just given what we would expect an archivist to be like. on the other hand, given the facts behind this letter, i am almost surprised the letter is not harsher than it is >> i do want to point out that they said they have to do their review to see if any damage is done. we cannot state unequivocally damage was done. we have to wait for the government to finish their

investigation on that. josh, i want to ask you about this motion that the trump team has filed. why file a request now for a special master? why say that the fbi needs to stop going through the material that they've been going through for two weeks already? >> well, there's been a lot of chaos in former president trump's orbit trying to get the right lawyers in place, trying to get his lawyers on the same page, trying to decipher what their strategy should be. one of the things they kind of settled on is they think there were things taken out of former president's residence that the fbi shouldn't have taken in their estimation. again, that is not proven. they think that is a good political argument to make, that it was a search that they took things they shouldn't have taken. that is one thing you want to see them do here. one of the points i want to make is when it comes to his legal team, a lot of these statements where they try to get a triumphant ride in the news media about how transparent they're being, what sort of narrative they're putting out

there. in some of these places they are not filing any sort of motions. in the case in florida the other day there was no motion actually filed from his team on whether to unseal the affidavit even though the former president said he wanted it unsealed. here you have an argument that by the account of many legal experts is faulty but in some ways it is the former president, if you read it closely, it is almost a press release. at one point he talks about how many bedrooms are in his mar-a-lago estate, how beautiful, how nice the property is. he's talking about all of these other things that far predate this. in some ways, it seemed like a political document and messaging document to his team, his conservative supporters. >> how do you expect it is going to be used? they put it out there. are they going to start wielding this and saying they're not responding appropriately to all of our requests? at some point in this document, at one point, and i read a couple of them, he starts asking, or the legal team starts asking these open questions, like why raid my home with a

platoon of federal agents when i voluntarily cooperated? what are you trying to hide from the public? why have you refused to tell me what you took from my home? >> yeah. that is the former president's words. you can tell his own words there. he gets heavily involved in these sorts of things. he's been talking to his lawyers repeatedly and those are questions he has wanted to put out there. one of his frustrations has been frankly that his messages just do not get the pick up like his tweets once got and some of his statements don't get the coverage they once got and this is a mechanism that's been in the courts and he knows will be covered widely to get some of these points out that he wants to make that are not necessarily legal points but are political points. >> all right. lisa, in reading this motion from a legal standpoint, first how did you read it? then i want to do a followup question on what if any of the arguments in here are potentially going to be acted on? will he get a special master

here? >> i don't think he'll get a special master. let's go back to your original question. how did i read it? there are innumerable problems with this as a legal document, as opposed to a political advocacy tool. let's start with the primary theme of voluntary cooperation, which is underlined not only by the "new york times" reporting and the letter but by this document itself. as ryan noted at the top of the hour president trump didn't return the first batch to the national archives until january of 2022, despite the fact they were asking for months. if you are voluntarily and completely cooperating it shouldn't take you a year to do ta. the other thing this filing doesn't mention is that there was a statement again according to the "new york times" signed by christina bob in her capacity as custodian of records that all classified materials had been returned to the fbi after j. brat from the department of justice and fbi agents went to

mar-a-lago and met in person with donald trump and his lawyers in june. but we now know that's not true. and nowhere in the motion where they're advertising their voluntary and complete cooperation did they talk about the fact that a supposed custodian of records for the president who is not designated as one of the people who has permission to access donald trump's presidential records, has no security clearance whatsoever as far as we know, there is no acknowledgment of that statement having been made. in terms -- you were going to ask me about the relief he has asked for and the special master. i don't think he is likely to get it. at least not as -- not if past is prolong here. special masters are often awarded by judges in situations where you've got a preindictment search where you've got really thorny privilege issues. for example when rudy guiliani had his electronic devices seized in the southern district

of new york last year there was a reasonable fear that much of what was swept up in that search would be attorney-client privileged information. but the fact that evan corcoran and jay trustee acting for president trump in this motion say that there's privileged information doesn't make it so. i have heard no specific assertions of attorney-client privileged information. as we talked about earlier, the executive privilege arguments just don't hold up. >> what about the request he is making to get these documents back? this was in the letter that national archives sent him. why would he want the documents back? and how would that factor into the investigation into him having them in the first place? >> well, i think what he is asking for in the motion and what he is asking for apparently did ask for before this letter seemed to be different. in the motion he is requesting them back only insofar as they go beyond the proper scope of

the search warrant. as we know magistrate judge bruce reinhart approved that search warrant on the basis of reviewing an affidavit that the rest of us have not yet seen. however, you ask why would he want them back? i think the answer, at least to me as a person who studies the justice department, is fairly obvious. he wants them back because of the one set of hands he does not want them in is that of the fbi. if he can't have them maybe nara should but the fbi and the department of justice should not because that leads to further investigation of one of the crimes that was used as a predicate for the warrant which is obstruction of an ongoing federal investigation. they're not going to stop just because the records are back in their possession. they've essentially told the public that by telling us the three statutes that they believe could have been violated and led to the warrant in the first place. >> what is the justice department saying about all of this, ryan? they have been going through these records now for a couple weeks. do we have a sense if they are

still going through them? have they already concluded their assessment of these documents? >> as of late last week the fbi was still sort of going through these documents and i think it is really late in the game for president trump to file this motion seeking this outside person to look at these documents. there is a little hypocrisy i wanted to highlight in that filing yesterday. there are all these things about the need for transparency, transparency coming from the trump side but then in this motion they complain about merrick garland's public press conference in which he was a very measured statement that he made only noting what doj had publicly filed, very careful to stay within the bounds and only reveal he was in fact the person who authorized the search warrant to be executed. but that is just a little business of a mismatch for them to be saying we want more transparency. why isn't doj being more transparent and then to complain about what was a pretty sterile

and by the book press conference by the attorney general basically making sure the american public knew that this, how this entire situation was handled. >> all right. lisa, one final question to you. i think i know the answer to it. but does this motion, this letter as well from the national archives, do either one of those things factor into what judge reinhart is considering right k the affidavit and redactions fro no. it's possible that the judge to whom this motion and complaint has been assigned will act in a way that precludes judge reinhart from acting further. however, if she doesn't do that, then i don't expect either of these things really to factor much into judge reinhart's decision making at all. if anything, the letter from the national archives underscores the seriousness of the

investigation and may give judge reinhart some facts that he didn't already know. on the other hand we haven't seen the affidavit. all of the back and forth between trump's lawyers and the fbi and the justice department could be well recited in that affidavit. those could be facts that judge reinhart is already well familiar with. >> okay. josh, there is one other moment in this motion where donald trump talks about something that had been reported on, which is that president trump wants the attorney general to know that he has been hearing from people all over the country about the raid. >> right. >> if there was one word to describe it they write the mood is angry. the heat is building up. the pressure is building up. whatever i can do to take the heat down to bring the pressure down just let us know. why are they including that? and what exactly is trump offering here? >> they're including it to show there was an entreaty by the former president trying to take the temperature down. they think that is a favorable fact by them. our reporting would indicate though that the former president

appreciates the outrage. one of his most initial reactions was to say how much he loved that all of the republicans were unified against this. one of the reasons he's wanted more details to come out according to multiple advisers is he thought it would build outrage and anger about the case and further solidify his supporters and how they feel like he has been wronged. he sees a lot of value from being the victim. you've seen his polls go up in some places. you've seen him close a fundraising hole, do a million dollars a day or so on some days after this. some of the outrage and frustration, former president views as quite positive to him and that said he gave merrick garland through this emissary, his legal team, this offer. but it is very unlikely that the justice department would have asked him to do anything like that and it is very uncertain to me that he would have actually done anything like that. >> no more powerful emotion than anger and fear and donald trump

seems to be trying to capitalize on both here. thank you very much. still ahead, voters head to the polls in several closely watched primaries. we'll go live to florida as democrats decide who will face off against governor ron desantis in november. plus, two words. madame president. are we ever going to hear it in our lifetime? my colleague ali vitali has a whole book about it. and why some companies are now cutting back on paid parental leave. on paid parental leave.

(vo) what can a nationwide 5g network from t-mobile for business do for your business? unlock new insights and efficiency-right now. allow monitoring of productivity at remote job sites, with next-generation bandwidth. enable ai cameras that spot factory issues in real time, using next-generation speed. and deliver ultra-capacity 5g coverage that's years ahead of the competition. t-mobile for business has 5g that's ready right now.

pool floaties are like whooping cough. amusement parks are like whooping cough. even 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. sometimes followed by vomiting and exhaustion. ask your doctor or pharmacist about whooping cough vaccination because whooping cough isn't just for kids. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

this is xfinity rewards. our way of showing our appreciation. with rewards of all shapes and sizes. [ cheers ] are we actually going? yes!! and once in a lifetime moments. two tickets to nascar! yes! find rewards like these and so many more in the xfinity app.

with just 11 weeks on the calendar until midterms and democrats' political fortunes trending in a positive direction folks in new york and florida are voting in some pretty interesting primaries and special elections ahead of november's general. in new york city, redistricting pits two long-time and high

profile democratic congress members against one another. caroline maloney and jerry nadler. in the hudson valley a special election for an open house seat is being watched as a bellwether for democrats' midterm strategy. that is democrat pat ryan versus republican mark molnaro. while in florida two well known democrats are vying for a chance to unseat governor ron desantis. joining me now from pompano beach, florida, and kingston, new york, and in new york city. pompano beach is my favorite thing to say today. i'll begin there with you. you've got these two candidates who want a chance to go after ron desantis. what are you hearing from voters? just secondly, i am curious. does it look like ron desantis is vulnerable at all in the race or does he have a pretty strong lock on the governor's mansion

as of now? >> when you look at polling he is ahead of the democratic candidates but this is still early and there is still time for the field to coalesce once a nominee is set here. one thing i've been hearing from both candidates and the voters that i've been talking to is that ron desantis is top of mind among the democrats in this state. they know what a formidible challenger desantis is with someone who has approval in the 50s, with that national name recognition and the $130 million war chest ready for whichever nominee comes out of this primary process. so among voters as they've been listening to the candidates they've been thinking about which one would be the strongest to go up against desantis. >> i voted for charlie krist. >> why? >> because i think he stands better chance of beating our current governor. >> okay. he was okay. i know him. he said that's where i'm going

again. >> so you went with crist because he was familiar to you. >> yes >> i just don't think crist was really that person and since the democratic opponent was freed i went along with that. >> reporter: many of the voters saying it was a tough battle and decision as they were deciding between charlie crist and fried. these voters cared about issues, the economy, abortion, education, not liking the direction or influence ron desantis had over the curriculum in this state. they say their bottom line is they can't address those issues unless they have a new governor in tallahassee. that is the context and why you have that approach to this primary election. it is about the existing governor and who they think is best positioned to beat him. >> dascha you are covering a special election race and yesterday we went through that because it can be a bellwether for democrats' messaging going

into november because one of the candidates is focusing very heavily on abortion. what are you hearing out there? >> yeah. >> just tell me about it. >> reporter: look, if you're searching for some clues, katy, about which way the political winds are blowing ahead of november come on out and join me in the hudson valley. it is beautiful and, yes, a bellwether. this district, new york's 19, it has swung from obama to trump to biden but even more significant right now is it could really answer that question about which party has the edge on messaging, on issues ahead of this critical midterm election? the democratic candidate pat ryan has really as you said made abortion a center piece of his campaign. his campaign signs read, choice is on the ballot. he talked to us earlier today, really tying the abortion issue with the freedom issue which is very similar by the way to the strategy that democrats used in

kansas, positioning this as a government over reach issue to try to grab some of those moderate republicans, some of those libertarian folks and get them on board as well. i want you to take a listen to a little bit of what pat ryan told us earlier today. this is a hotly watched race. set up the stakes for us. >> i think the foundations of our democracy are at threat. we have fundamental rights and freedoms including the right for a woman to have access to safe abortion, to have reproductive rights being ripped away? and so much of this race has been about standing up and saying, that is not who we are as americans. >> reporter: and, katy, his opponent mark molnaro on the other hand really zeroed in on inflation, posing this race as a referendum on president biden and democrats in washington focusing on the economic issues and really downplaying abortion as a concern here in the state of new york.

he says, look. this right is protected here. it's settled in this state. that's not what i'm going to be focused on but on pocketbook issues. i'll tell you as i've been talking to voters here, roe vs. wade, abortion access is the number one thing that i hear. i talked to them, what did you think about when you cast that ballot? roe, roe, roe. so even in a state where abortion access is not immediately at risk that is very much top of mind for the voters we've spoken with today. >> so in looking at what is happening in new york city today you have these two long-term democratic house members, high profile house members, powerful house members caroline maloney and jerry nadler's whose districts are no-no longer separate and only one can survive, that is interesting but also interesting the third candidate in this race, the guy running for generational change saying, yes, they've both done a great job but it's time for some fresh blood. what about that dynamic in this

race? and does he have a shot? >> well, katy, there is nothing like quite casting alongside a long friendship to fight in a congressional primary but that is what they are doing. they have served alongside each other for three decades and now their districts have been blended into one. that means at least one of them must go. they are trying to differentiate from each other and urge voters to pick them over the other new york democrat. they are describing this as a matter of accomplishment in the case of maloney who is highlighting that and jerry nadler describing himself as the more principled candidate. let's listen to what the two of them had to say. >> we base a choice on august 23rd about who has delivered the most for the 12th congressional district and who will be delivering the most in the next congress for the 12th congressional district. and the choice is very clear. actions speak louder than words.

accomplishments speak louder than words. >> i'm the more principled progressive. i've cast hard votes, unpopular votes at the time that have proven right like voting against the war in iraq, voting against the patriot act, voting for the iran deal. >> reporter: now, katy, you mentioned the third candidate in this race the 38-year-old candidate who ran against carolyn maloney and came very close to beating her. let's see if that carries over this time. he is campaigning on generational change and says throw them both out and bring new blood into congress. i put that to jerry nadler a few hours ago, why shouldn't there be generational change in new york after you two served for 30 years and he argued with seniority comes clout and the ability to deliver for new york city. >> really interesting stuff. thank you very much.

very cool, pompano beach. i know you want to say it with me. pompano. a quick programming note tonight. steve kornacki returns to the big board to break down live primary results. spend primary election night with msnbc tonight starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern. coming up, what does inflation have to do with paid parental leave? what it is doing to it. plus, what is it going to take to break the single dumbest losing streak in american politics and put a woman in the white house? n the white house? ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

large out-of-state corporations have set ♪ ♪ their sights on california. they've written prop 27, to allow online sports betting. they tell us it will fund programs for the homeless. but read prop 27's fine print.

90% of profits go to out-of-state corporations, leaving almost nothing for the homeless. no real jobs are created here. but the promise between our state and our sovereign tribes would be broken forever. these out-of-state corporations don't care about california. but we do. stand with us. man 1: have you noticed the world is on fire? record heat waves? does that worry you? well, it should. because this climate thing is your problem. man 2: 40 years ago, when our own scientists at big oil predicted that burning fossil fuels could lead to catastrophic effects, we spent billions to sweep it under the rug. man 3: so we're going to be fine. but you might want to start a compost pile, turn down the ac. you got a lot of work to do because your kids are going to need it. new astepro allergy. now available without a prescription. astepro is the first and only 24-hour steroid free spray. while other allergy sprays take hours astepro starts working in 30 minutes.

so you can... astepro and go. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ , quote, everyone comes up to me and says, i would vote for you if you had a penis. elizabeth warren said that. her plainest view of what was happening in the 2020 race for president. in other words it wasn't enough to lead on policy or plans if you want to get elected in this country you also need a little something extra between her legs. her new book "electable" ali vitali considers what we need to break the single dumbest losing streak in american politics, as

i say. nbc koll correspondent ali vitali joins me now. congratulations on the book. >> thank you. >> you followed warren in the 2020 presidential cycle after we both followed donald trump in the 2016 presidential cycle. what was different? >> there was gender in both of those. the way you frame it in the blurb i am very grateful for, it is the dumbest losing streak in american politics and there are reasons for it that sometimes we gloss over because there is not a percentage point or polling piece we can say, oh, this slice of the pie was made up because of gender. what i try to do in this book is talk through all of these things we reported on in real time from the 2020 cycle while also reaching back at runs like shirley chisolm in 1972 or the first time we saw a woman on the ballot as vice president in

1984 up to 2020 when you had more women running in every field than ever before and still all of them fell short in large part because of the election you and i covered together which was donald trump versus hillary clinton, the trump factor complicated things and of course the fact voters were so skittish after 2016, believing so fully clinton was not just the most qualified person to ever run for president but also someone they expected to win and by the way did by the metric of the popular vote but that is not how we elect presidents in this country. >> we talk about these issues in a broadway a lot of times but you get specific in your book and cite the specific lang uage that is used in voters in the way they talk about women candidates and also the way the media covers female candidates. explain that. >> think about the way we frame a question. i was guilty of asking this as well during the course of the 2020 primary. how can you do something that's never been done before, right? that is what voters are trying to find out.

when they put the measure of electability to me and this is why it is the title of the book and the bottom line when you consider why we haven't had a female president yet is because electability is a fair thing for voters to understand about their candidates. they want to pick a winner. definitely in 2020 wanted to pick somebody who could beat trump and the ways they go about doing that is think about someone who is safe and unrisky. to them it ended up being someone who looked like the guy who had done the job almost every other time we had seen a president. i asked readers to do this in the book to close your eyes and think about what you envision almost involuntarily when you think about what a president looks likes and for female candidates in 2020 being asked that question of how do you win was packed with so much gender bias and in reality it is a question that none of them could answer satisfactorily because you can't answer that until voters vote for you and if voters vote for you you win. but voters didn't want to vote for people they didn't know for sure could win so the benefit of the doubt wasn't given to female

candidates. >> gillibrand was also running and when you spoke to her about the 2020 race she says that a woman is necessarily by definition going to be a change candidate because there hasn't been a woman in the white house. she told you and tell me if i'm wrong, but didn't she tell you that she looking back does not believe that a woman could have beaten donald trump in 2020? >> yes. she said in this cycle of 2020 and we had this conversation during 2020, that she didn't think any woman could have won the nomination at that point because in the words that she uses and i think you guys have this on a graphic you can put up, the words she uses to describe joe biden winning the nomination are things like safe, comfortable, and, look, there's the politics piece of this because you and i are reporters first, the politics on this is that biden politically was a moderate. someone who voters didn't think could get tagged with the progressive baggage of things like medicare for all or other things that republicans could say were radical. so yeah. there is a political piece to

this of course. but then there is also that intangible piece which is that biden looked like everyone who had done this job before and gillibrand i think makes a good point when she says that to elect a woman in this moment to this job is change fundamentally because you have never seen anyone not look like a man and get this job. >> i'll throw you a curveball but i think you can hit it. i want to ask you about the finnish prime minister and this controversy about this video that appeared of her dancing at a friend's house and then the demands from her opponents, her rival also a woman that she needed to be drug tested. is this only because she was a woman? >> look, i think this is actually a moment where whether or not it is because she's a woman solely i actually think we would probably ask this of a male official in the same way. we would be similarly surprised to see him going out and dancing, but that doesn't mean this isn't actually a moment that shows the progress that has been made in terms of the way we

talk about things like this. there have been women across the internet, across the world who have been posting videos of themselves dancing and saying, oh, shockingly, this elected official who happens to be young and female is also a person who does things outside of politics. i think that it is a mile marker of progress and quite frankly i also think that it sort of proves one of the things i was hopeful about in doing this book which is, putting these things that we all experienced and reported in real time through a gender lens and pointing out to people that our biasses are there. once you've seen them for the first time it disrupts the mayor tifs a little bit more clearly. i think in the same way we are talking about this moment and a politician dancing with her friends, a woman in her 30s, i think it is the same conversation we can then have of women in real time showing, okay. this is just a person who goes out and dances with her friends like every other woman. politicians. they're just like us. >> the first step is admitting you have a problem. >> exactly. >> congratulations on the book. it is called "electable: why

america has not put a woman in the white house yet." ali, congrats. >> thank you, my friend. it has been a long summer of red hot inflation but has it finally peeked? they offered and now they don't. why some companies are pulling back on paid parental leave. hint, it ties back to inflation. astepro is the first and only 24-hour steroid free spray. while other allergy sprays take hours astepro starts working in 30 minutes. so you can... astepro and go.

♪ ♪ this is the moment. for a treatment for moderate-to-severe eczema. cibinqo — fda approved. 100% steroid free. not an injection, cibinqo is a once-daily pill for adults who didn't respond to previous treatments.

and cibinqo helps provide clearer skin and less itch. cibinqo can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. before and during treatment, your doctor should check for infections and do blood tests. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b or c, have flu-like symptoms, or are prone to infections. do not take with medicines that prevent blood clots. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma, lung, skin and other cancers, serious heart-related events, and blood clots can happen. people 50 and older with heart disease risk factors have an increased risk of serious heart-related events or death with jak inhibitors. this is the moment. but we've only just begun. speak with your doctor about cibinqo today. an innovation from pfizer.

♪ ♪ speak with your doctor about cibinqo today. aleve x. its revolutionary rollerball design delivers fast, powerful, long-lasting pain relief. aleve it, and see what's possible.

"the wall street journal" reports it is one of thousands of business across the country reducing how much paid time off they are giving moms and dads to the federally mandated minimums not that it was a widespread practice to begin with. an industry survey of 3,000 businesses found 35% were offering extended paid maternity leave beyond what is required by law falling from 53% in 2020. companies offering paid paternity fleev 44% to 27% in the same time frame. joining me now is the director of paid leave for all. this is frustrating. in 2020 we saw a lot of

companies saying i need to be able to retain my employees. they realize that it was an incredibly stressful time for parents so they expanded them. was this retraction shun always going to be in the cards? was there a hope it would end up being permanent? >> i think we certainly hopes that we would learn things out of the pandemic about the value of prevention and care, the ways these things impact businesses' bottom lines. we know that more than 23% of workers would actually have parental leefb for their jobs. certainly there have been a lot of, you know, particularly small businesses really struggling. you know, particularly small

businesses really struggling to try to provide these protections for their workers. this all reinforces the need for a national solution and public investment and i want to be clear it is not just an unfunded mandate from businesses. the federal program would benefit both businesses and workers alike. >> you're talking about how this needs to be federal. a lot of companies are saying part of the issue is inflation. part of the issue are these nagging fears that a recession is looming. though we're not currently in one. they're starting to plan ahead. when you're talking about how it needs to come from the federal government, there have been plans that have been proposed, plans in big legislation and it ends up always being one of the first things that is stripped out. why is that? >> i have a couple perspectives

on this. i want to say i know how hard leadership fought for this and how many people tried to get paid leave over the finish line along with a lot of other really important care policies. we were so close. just a vote or two away. of course i think you can look back on history and see this isn't the first time that women have been the casualties of compromise. that people of color have been cut out of packages. so i think it does speak to a larger trend of course and priorities in this country and something that we are fighting hard against. and we believe we can change and still in the short term get done. >> if you're talking to somebody saying what can i do to change this on the federal level, what is your advice? >> so many things. first of all, your elected officials need to hear from you again and again. call them, e-mail them. show up in their offices. organize. for instance we are organizing with more than 30 women and

business founders later this week at paid leave for all speaking out collectively about the need of a national paid medical leave program. go on social. tell your story. talk to your neighbors. all of these things. we are really close. with a little bit more power we believe for this? they talked about being in favor of this. widely across the country this is something that is popular among democrats and republicans and independents who are voting. but we've only seen democrats try to vote on this so far. republicans, i mean they could have asked to keep it in the bill and voted yes, any number of the bills that have gone through congress the past -- in the past year or so. but we haven't seen a republican say it doesn't matter about joe manchin i'm going to get in and vote yes for this. are you hopeful there is a republican senator who would come up with plan to get it through? >> i think you're right, but it's frustrating we've been cornered into trying to pass legislation this way. as you've pointed out, paid

leave is one of the most widely supported policies in this country. we do polling again and again. we have more coming out soon in senate battleground states. there's bipartisan support, really strong independent women and suburban women support, key voting blocks. this is something that is true and unites people across this country. so our hope is that that will be reflected in congress. we've seen lots of commentary and ideas across the aisle, but what we're looking for is something that's real. a comprehensive and real paid leave program that keeps people attached to their jobs, keeps them attached to their wages, gives them time to care and we hope to see that from democrats and republicans alike. >> 11 states throughout require some paid parental leave california, massachusetts, new york, among others. 39 states do not require it.

but good for those 11 i guess. thank you very much for joining us and we'll continue watching this story. breaking news, a special prosecutor in tlaentsz determined that officers involved in the june 2020 police shooting of rashard brooks did not act with criminal intent. he concluded the use of deadly force was reasonable. you remember this story, this happened during the pandemic. brooks was a 27-year-old man shot and killed by officer garrett wolffe after failing a sobriety test in the parking lot of a wendy's restaurant. he had fallen asleep in his car in the drive-through. brooks began to fight with the responding officers and took a taser from one of the responding officers and while fleeing the fight brooks appeared to turn back and aim the taser at officer wolf. wolf then shot brooks twice in the back killing him. charges against both of those officers have been dropped. joining me is civil rights attorney and brooklyn, new york,

prosecutor charl kulemin, also an msnbc legal analyst. your reaction to this decision? >> my reaction is in large part unsurprised but nonetheless very disappointed. i think this is another example of how police culture in america has gotten out of control and has been for a long time at the systemic level and i think this is also an example of why we need greater accountability for the system overall and cannot leave this to be a question for individual courts and juries. i understand that of late we've seen some level of accountability with respect to indictments and convictions, but in a case like this where it is clear to most people that the police perhaps escalated the situation more than they deescalated it, it is another example of why there has to be greater transparency in law enforcement and accountability in policing and why qualified immunity needs to go.

>> the act of turning around and pointing the taser, we saw a little bit of it in the video, was that what was probably the sticking point for the prosecutor here, that that moment right there justified the use of force? >> well, more likely than not that is going to be what the defense honed in on in terms of making their argument and case in terms of the police officers in this instance. i'm going back to the notion this should never have gotten this far. this was no need -- this was not a situation that there was a need to escalate in the manner that led to rayshard brooks being in the position he was in and i maintain that this is an example of broken policing. even as the prosecutor may have seen that, you know, rayshard brooks at one point pointed the taser in the direction of the officers we have to consider the officers cannot have it both ways. you cannot as a police officer on one hand as georgia police officers have done repeatedly in cases in the past allege that

tasers are a use of nonlethal force and respond with lethal force in this instance because you say you are in fear of your life. those two don't work together. either the tasers are nonlethal force and you can't argue you were in fear of your life and respond with lethal force or the taser is lethal force and when you use the taser you have to acknowledge as an officer you are exactly doing exactly that, you are engaging lethal force against a defendant. that's one of the problems that i have in this situation is that georgia law enforcement has on numerous occasions, when court -- when it has suited them, claimed a use of a taser is not deadly force. in this instance if rayshard brooks used a taser against an officer or appeared as though he was going to use a taser against an officer that would not automatically allow for that officer to respond with lethal force to rayshard brooksly. >> spoke to one of the officers involved or the officer that shot the gun in the days after

this and i asked him about the event, and he called it a tragic event. said it was a tragedy a man had to lose his life that night and said, i was respectful to him and i thought he seemed like someone who potentially needed my help and i was just there to see what i could do for him, make sure he was safe. obviously, that's not what happened in the end. when we look at a case like this, we got to ask about training and the training that has been imposed in police departments across the country since, you know, those very heady days of the summer of 2020. do you think it's been helpful? >> well, caty, i think that the emphasis of training in this conversation is well placed in as much as american police officers receive per capita a significantly lower amount of training as compared to their counterparts across the world in developed countries. but i think it is a conversation as well about culture. american law enforcement is not

cultured in a spirit of service. they are cultured in a spirit of violence and i think that's something that we cannot avoid. we have to acknowledge that until we make service and protection an actual tenant of american law enforcement and accountability and transparency a functional part of how we operate, we are unfortunately enabling these sorts of instances to continue to happen. >> i spoke with devin, i'm sorry, the other officer involved. i got the names mixed up. thank you very much for being with us on that breaking news. we appreciate it. that's going to do it for me today. stick with us on msnbc. hallie jackson is next. and lost some weight. announcer: ozempic® provides powerful a1c reduction. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease.

and you may lose weight. adults lost up to 14 pounds. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. join the millions already taking ozempic®. ask your health care provider about the ozempic® tri-zone. announcer: you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription. the tenth pick is in the new all-american club. that's a “club” i want to join! let's hear from simone. chuck, that's a club i want to join! i literally just said that. i like her better than you

the new subway series. what's your pick? this? this is supersonic wifi from xfinity. the new subway series. it's fast. so gaming with your niece has never felt more intense. incoming! hey, what does this button do? no, don't! welcome to the fastest internet on the largest gig speed network. are you crying uncle ed? no! a little. only from xfinity. unbeatable internet made to do anything so you can do anything.

coming on the air with nbc news's new reporting on the documents retrieved from mar-a-lago with the national archives confirming some were marked as containing the government's closely held secrets. plus an nbc news scoop on another investigation involving donald trump. the former administration official meeting with the january 6th committee today. we've got live reports on all of it coming up. plus, our team out on the campaign trail with the five hours of voting in key races that could shape the midterms. what the candidates and voters are telling us including in one place where tonight's results will echo beyond the district. breaking news out of atlanta where we're learning a special prosecutor will not pursue charges against the officers