good to be with you. i'm katy tur. we do not know what is in. we do not know how much more we will learn. but we do know at some point in the next 60 minutes, we will get our first glimpse of the affidavit used to justify the fbi search of mar-a-lago. the federal judge gave the justice department a deadline of noon today to make public a redacted copy of the affidavit. that means there will be blacked out portions that the doj wants to keep secret. details like witnesses and the names of fbi agents. in his ruling, judge bruce reinhart called the redactions,

quote, narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate interest in the integrity of the ongoing investigation. media outlets, including nbc news, asked the judge to make it public. trump and his allies have also repeatedly called for it to be unsealed, although they've made no formal motion to do so. so the question we'll be waiting to find out, what is it going to reveal about the doj's case against the former president. at least, why they had that search warrant. we've got a team of experts standing by to answer that question and to help us dissect it once we have it. meanwhile, this morning, president biden is on the offense, turning up the heat on what he's call maga republicans. a big change in tone from president biden, slamming their philosophy during a fund-raiser in d.c., saying it's like semi-fascism. then he took that energy on the road last night to a campaign rally, it seemed, in maryland. >> they're a threat to our very democracy. they refuse to accept the will of the people.

they embrace, embrace political violence. they don't believe in democracy. >> we're going to talk about those comments and the new tone from the white house twitter account as well, ahead. but let me start with the expected release of the affidavit coming again, any moment this hour. joining me now is nbc news justice and intelligence correspondent, ken dilanian, in washington. nbc's shaq brewster, who is near mar-a-lago in west palm beach, florida. katie benner, an msnbc contributor and justice reporter for "the new york times," and chuck rosenberg, former senior fbi official along with charles coleman, a civil rights attorney and former prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst. all right. ken, the deadline is noon. it is now 11:00 a.m. do you have any indication whatsoever from the justice department about when they're going to post it? is it going to be in the next five minutes or are we going to get it at 11:59:59? >> i wish i could help.

it's a very democratic process. it's going to appear to all of us at the same time, on the federal -- electronic federal docket. and our colleague, daniel barnes is refreshing madly on our account there. and we'll see it and we'll print it out and download it and tell you what's in it. we are -- i'm getting signals that we're going to learn a few things from this document. i don't want to -- i mean, i don't want to overstate, not a lot, but some things that will move the ball a little bit and what we understand about this investigation, and perhaps will reinforce some of the things that we've been learning from other sources, from documents put out by the national archives and other places on the long and tortured history of the government's efforts to get some of these documents back from the former president of the united states. and we may also learn a little bit about the significance of the documents and why the fbi has moved in such, you know, an aggressive and decisive manner in obtaining this search warrant, katy. >> we have a timeline of the

interactions between the government and trump team, that we know of, from both reporting and from some official statements and court documents. it's quite an extensive timeline that goes back more than a year with the government saying, we need these documents back and then the trump team, saying, okay, we're complying, then delaying. we are expecting this affidavit. i've spoken to you a lot about this. it is surprising that we're going to get anything at all, given that from your experience of what affidavits contain, the sources and methods that might be underlying, the witnesses, et cetera, what is your expectation that we're going to see from this? >> yeah, so, to ken's point, i think we're going to learn some new stuff about the procedure. i would be surprised if we learned very much about the substance. let me explain that, katy. you can think about an affidavit as having sort of two general

buckets of information. procedural one is the windup, the back and forth between the national archives and mr. trump's lawyers, trying to get ahold of documents that belong to the government, but that mr. trump had retained. right? all of that procedural history, why the government is interested, i think, is stuff we'll probably see in some detail. and it will confirm a lot of what we have already known from good public reporting, like katie benner's. the second part of the affidavit, the second bucket is the more interesting thing. that's the investigation itself. the basis for probable cause. why the government believed that a federal crime had been committed and why the government believed that they would find evidence of that federal crime at mar-a-lago. i don't think we're going to get very much of that. i would be very surprised if there was any detail with respect to witnesses or to investigative methods or techniques to uncharged conduct and the like. the judge has made it pretty

clear that that stuff is off-limits. so i think ken is right. we're going to see some stuff that helps us understand the back and forth a little bit more. but the really cool stuff, the substantiative part of the affidavit, the probable cause basis, i would be very surprised if we saw that. at least not today. >> sorry, chuck, for cutting you off at the end. katie, this is your world as well. tell me about what you know right now? >> i think that chuck is exactly right, especially important for the justice department is to protect witnesses involved in this investigation. keep in mind, there has been no decision made on what to do, how to go forward within the justice department, vis-a-vis this particular issue. this is an ongoing investigation. they need very much to make sure that all witnesses that are in the affidavit are completely protected. otherwise, it will chill further cooperation. and i think that's a top priority, particularly given security concerns around witnesses not just for the justice department, but for the january 6th committee and anybody who has been seen to

speak publicly against the former president. so this is a real concern for the justice department. also, i do agree that it's probably unlikely we'll see anything substantiative about the kinds of information that they sought, beyond its classification markings. >> chuck, are we going get more information -- i know they're not going to veal the names of witnesses, but will we get an idea of the number of witnesses that they may have spoken to? and will we will be able to, in looking at that, kind of suss out who those witnesses or where those witnesses might have come from? >> i hope not. i hope the redactions are done in a way that these witnesses are protected. very creative reporters and sleuths around the country will try to figure out who's who by the size of the redactions, by measuring the black blocks that are going to appear in the redacted affidavit. this is what gives me some discomfort, katy. normally, affidavits are made public, but only after charges

are brought, for exactly the reasons that katie benner just explained. because witnesses have come forward, they would be threatened, they would be at risk. others may be, you know, dissuaded from cooperating in this investigation or others. so, you would normally get to see the affidavit, but it's just not at this point. and that's what gives me the discomfort. >> all right, shaq. you are outside of mar-a-lago. donald trump has been vocal about this on the social media site that he's still allowed on, his own social media site. and he and his team have said in the past that they want to see this affidavit, but nobody in trump world has filed an official motion asking for it. so where do things stand today? i know we're showing donald trump's latest post. >> yeah, you mentioned we've been hearing from the former president on his social media platform there. i believe we do have the post that we can play up there. but, you know, the message that we heard this morning is very consistent of what we've been hearing from donald trump, since that august 8th raid. he hasn't mentioned anything

about the affidavit and the impending release of it, but he has disparaged the investigators. he called them this morning, political hacks and thugs. he says this is all politically motivated. he's been accusing them of theft and praising the presidential records act. but, katy, one interesting thing here is that it's been from the former president's side. both him and these his legal team that we've learned much of the information about this search. it was the former president who announced that there was a search on his property. it was because of documents that were filed in court that we learned that there was a federal grand jury subpoena for some of these documents, that we learned that there were multiple conversations between prosecutors and his legal team. so much of what we know right now has come from the side of former president trump. so we'll be watching his post and we'll be watching his truth social media app to see if he updates and comments on what we ultimately learned from that affidavit to be released. >> chuck, i want to go back to

you and one other thing, and that is, i think it's important to compare the way that other presidents have dealt with classified information, compared to the way that donald trump is dealing with classified information. and also dealing with their own presidential records. and "the new york times" has a great example of this today. and they talk about obama. for example, during the three years that mr. obama wrote his 768-page memoir, after leaving the white house, the millions of pages of his official presidential records were locked away, "the times" reports, in warehouses in washington and chicago. each time mr. obama wanted to review something, his aides submitted precise requests to the national archives and records administration. sometimes documents would be encrypted and loaded on to a laptop, that would be brought to mr. obama at his office in washington. other times, a paper document would be placed in a locked bag for his pursual and later

returned that same day. so different than how we've learned donald trump handled classified information, inside the white house, but also the fact that he brought so much of it home with it. more than 700 documents that were returned to the national archives in that first batch alone back in january. and as the national archives reported and released in a letter we all saw, some of it with classified markings at the most high level, the most top-secret level that the government has. >> you draw a very stark distinction between mr. obama and i'm sure all of his predecessors, on one hand, and mr. trump on the other. katy, i think it's important to remember that the presidency is held in trust, right? the men -- the men, so far, and hopefully very soon the women -- don't own the house they live in. it's our house. we just let them stay there for a few years. and they don't own the documents. they're caretakers. and so most of the men who have held that job understand that. and treat the job with the

reverence and treat the documents, classified information with care. mr. obama is one example. but i'm sure mr. bush and mr. clinton and their predecessors did it the same way. they got the job. they understood what was required. they were adults. mr. trump's view is that the house and the planes and the helicopters and the military, the generals, the classified information are his. and that is just such a broken way of thinking about the job. so on one hand, it's incredibly disappointing. on the other hand, katy, it's not at all surprising. >> also according to "the new york times" reporting, trump has said of these documents, "they're mine." ken dilanian, if we're going to draw the contrast again, let's also talk about others who have been charged and prosecuted for taking home classified information. you gave us a great note internally today about the background to that. can you walk us through it? >> sure, katy. there's been some really interesting cases in recent

years. for example, of two employees of the national security agency, those are the folks that intercept communications out at ft. mead north of here, who brought home highly classified documents to their homes, and there was no allegation that any of that ever leaked out to an adversary, although there were submissions. one guy was essentially a hoarder. he brought home millions of documents, stuffed them in his house, some of them were documents, some were paper. he got nine years in prison after one count of willfully mishandling classified information. another employee got five and a half years in prison. and there are other cases of more prominent people, including general david petraeus, who as we all remember, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor paid a fine and got probation and lost -- and had some security clearance issues when he admitted that he had classified information that he provided to a woman with whom he had a relationship at time. so -- then there's famously sandy berger, the former

national security adviser for bill clinton, admitted taking classified documents out of the national archives, stuffing them in his pants in some cases, and he pleaded guilty and lost his security clearance. so there is precedent for this and there are consequences for this behavior, katy. >> there has been consequences for those who have done it in the past. katie benner, one more final question to you. a number of laws are cited in the search warrant that we have seen so far. do you have any indication from the justice department about, and this is probably a hard question, and i'm not sure you have the answer to it, but where you're going with this. whether this is going to ultimately result in charges or some sort of consequences for president trump. >> you know, i think that merrick garland has made very clear that he's going to treat this case as he would any other and follow the facts and the law. what we do know is that no decision has been made as to whether or not to charge donald trump. this is an ongoing investigation, which is one of the reasons why they're so adamant about protecting the witnesses involved in this

affidavit. because it's ongoing, we can presume that no decision has been made. we also know that this is going to be a decision that is made by merrick garland himself. there is no way that the decision as to whether or not to prosecute a former president of the united states would be made by anybody else. but it is also his deputies who will be informing him that he will rely on the assessments made in the national security division and the deputy attorney general's office, ultimately, before he makes that choice. >> all right. it is 11:15. the justice department now has 45 minutes left to post this redacted affidavit. so we will wait and see what we get. i know a lot of you are sticking around with us to see when that comes. so, stay here. it can happen any minute. but first, what jerome powell just said in the last hour about the federal reserve's fight with inflation. some news there. plus, president biden hit the campaign trail with a new favorite catchphrase. >> the alternative to the democrats are the maga republicans. the maga republicans. the maga republicans. the maga republicans.

>> what the white house is doing. we're going to get into it. and he's slamming the embrace of quote, semi-fascism. how republicans are responding to this, next. how republicans are responding to this, next. oh, i can tell business is going through the “woof”. but seriously we need a reliable way to help keep everyone connected from wherever we go. well at at&t we'll help you find the right wireless plan for you. so, you can stay connected to all your drivers and stores on america's most reliable 5g network. that sounds just paw-fect. terrier-iffic i labra-dore you round of a-paws at&t 5g is fast, reliable and secure for your business. we just moved. so there's millions of - dahlias in bloom. over nine acres. when we started, we grew a quarter of an acre. now i'm taking on new projects on the regular. we always dreamed of having this property, so - i want to make my yard look as beautiful as butters, here. butters. how are you doing over there? we do both vegetables and large mouth bass. yep. we've got tons of them, don't we, buddy? there are millions of ways to make the most of your land.

learn how to make the most of yours at deere.com 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.

"peace of mind." such a big, beautiful idea. and for us at booking.com this means - free cancellation on most bookings. it's a bit functional. but we'll gladly be functional. so you can be free. booking.com booking.yeah this? this is supersonic wifi from xfinity. bit'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.

with just a little more than two months until the midterms, president biden is kicking up his rhetoric against the republican party, going much harder than we've seen him do in the past. at a fund-raiser in maryland yesterday, biden said the maga philosophy that many republicans now subscribe to is like, quote, semi-fascism. he continued making that argument at a rally last night. >> trump and the extreme maga republicans have made their choice to go backwards, full of anger, violence, hate, and division. the maga republicans don't just threaten our personal rights and economic security. they're a threat to our very democracy. >> joining me now is nbc senior white house correspondent, kelly o'donnell. also, adrienne elrod, democratic strategy and former senior aide

with the biden/harris campaign. kelly, this is a different tone from the president than we've heard in the past. what's going on behind the scenes? >> well, they finally have a galvanizing message. and it might be a case to make that for many months in the biden administration, democrats are searching for what would that midterm message be, knowing they had historic headwinds against them, with control of the white house. both chambers of congress, and what that historically says. likely to lose seats. but now they feel that they have some arguments to make and some successes to tout. and one of the most effective arguments in a campaign is to try to make it a stark choice and to use the power of fear. fear about rights that could be lost, fear about a country going backwards. those can be very powerful emotions to get democrats who might otherwise be willing to sit on the couch and not get up to turn out. and certainly the overturning of

roe v. wade has been an animating issue for many democrats. and they've tried to expand that more broadly to freedom. to say, if that was put at jeopardy, as we have seen it play out, could gay marriage be next. could other issues that are dear to people's personal freedoms be on the line. and so, there are now some very stark choices that the president is willing to get behind and he has ramped up his rhetoric. he did say that there are conservative republicans with whom he has worked, that he likes and trusts. he made that distinction, but the overall whelming message is what you focused on there, katy, that he is calling out what he is describing as maga republicans and making them into sort of the semi-fascist, as he described it, and really trying to say, this is a hardened view that does not really match most people's american values. and so that's a case he is willing to take to the american people. >> he's also taking it to social

media, as well. hitting back against republicans who have complained about the loan forgiveness for student loans. marjorie taylor greene is one of those examples. she was complaining about it. they posted on twitter, the money that marjorie taylor greene's business got from the personal loans during the pandemic, the pandemic-era loans, that debt forgiveness that she received, as well. i guess, was the new york 19th win, that special election win, when we saw pat ryan beat an established republican who was pretty popular in that area, by focusing on abortion and democracy at threat, was that the motivation, the trigger for the biden administration to start going harder? >> yeah, i think so, katy. there's been two major bellwethers that have taken place in the month of august. one, of course, was the abortion vote in kansas. and one was the special flexion new york. so we as a democratic

strategist, we were looking at those two races, or those two issues to see what would actually happen. i think this gave the biden administration kind of the impetus it needed, especially going into the midterms, knowing that those bellwethers are kind of over with now. we have to focus on early on election day on how to really draw that contrast. you've been covering campaigns for a long time, obviously, so has kelly. you don't win campaigns by touting a positive message. you have got to draw that contrast and give voters a choice. and there's no one better to do this than the sitting president of the united states. he has the ultimate bully pulpit. it can't just be that a white house staffer or it can't just be that cabinet members or members of congress who are drawing that contrast. it's got to come from the president. and he's done a great job of doing that so far. i think you're going to see more and more of a contrast message going forward. him saying, you know, at a major campaign speech in maryland, that these are maga republicans who are semi-fascist and want to essentially subvert democracy, that carries a lot of weight. and i think you're going to see

more of that coming from him. you're going to see more and more of that coming from democrats. the only way that we're going to mitigate some of the potential losses that we could have going into the midterms is to make a choice very clear to the american people. >> so one of the old cardinal rules of politicking was, don't denigrate the other side's voters. hillary clinton broke that rule in 2016 with the despicables comments, and the donald trump campaign used that and everyone marched proudly saying they were despicable on that side. is the white house worried about potentially alienating and maybe having it backfire in that way? or do they feel that this is different, kelly? >> i think there is risk there. and the deplorables comment of 2016 really took hold. and so the president now has to find a way to talk about the decisions that voters are making, to believe election lies. to support election denier

candidates. and to separate that from the individuals who he can describe as hard-working americans who want some of the same things, and to go back to his scranton joe persona. certainly, pennsylvania is one of the races on the senate side that will be key. that is territory that joe biden knows well. some of these arguments will play with greater vivid nature in different parts of the country. it is high risk to attack american voters. and so he's got to find a way to describe the characteristics that he sees as a threat. and not to impugn the voters themselves. and that can be a hard thing to threat. and we saw that that was harnessed by donald trump against hillary clinton when she used the "basket of deplorables" phrasing. it became a badge of honor for many of them. and we also have found that there have been times that when the comments that president biden has made about trump voters have also been used and

become part of the t-shirt trade, if you will, on the donald trump side. there's risk for that as well. >> big t-shirt trade when you go to those trump rallies. kelly o'donnell, thank you very much. adrienne elrod, thank you, as well. and last hour, federal reserve chair jerome powell assured the public that the central bank is pulling out all stops to slow inflation with continued higher interest rates. but it will be a tough road ahead for a lot of americans. here's part of what he said at a speech in wyoming. >> restoring price stability will take some time. and requires using our tools forcefully to bring demand and supply into better balance. reducing inflation is likely to require a sustained period of below-trend growth. moreover, there will very likely be some softening of labor market conditions. while higher interest rates, slower growth, and softer labor market conditions will bring down inflation, they will also bring some pain to households and businesses. these are the unfortunate costs

of reducing inflation. but a failure to restore price stability would mean far greater pain. >> another key indicator about the state of inflation this morning, consumer prices were up 6.3% in july compared to last year, but slowed compared to june. that is according to the bureau of economic analysis. and the dow has already dropped 500 points this morning, following powell's speech. the s&p 500 and the nasdaq tumbled as well. let's bring in cnbc's senior analyst, ron insana. ron, good to see you. >> i don't think any of this will make it into the t-shirt category. he's talking about the risk of a recession. a mild one, hopefully, or a soft landing that will raise the unemployment rate to certain extent to limit wage pressures that we've seen on the upside of late and to cool down demand for a variety of products, whether it's housing, which we've already seen slump, auto demand has been very strong. some of that, though, that has

already turned lower. but he is indicating that the fed is willing to risk some kind of a recession to bring inflation back towards the fed's target of 2%. >> so what's the expectation for raising interest rates in the near future? >> he held up the possibility that a larger than normal rate hike could come in september, which means three quarters of a point, probably not 1%, as some might fear. but that would be three meetings in a row of three quarter point rate hikes. something we've not seen in quite a number of years. the fed is intent on raising interstates, short-term interest rates, somewhere north of 3.5%, which puts downward pressure on the economy. and obviously, as you said, puts downward pressure on the stock market, as well. so we're going to see the fed raise rates likely through the end of this year before they reassess where they are. and they want to see more than just one month of good news on the inflation front, again, before they do any reassessing of the current policy stance. >> how is this going to affect the housing market? a lot of people are concerned

that we've been in a bubble and things are going to dramatically slow. >> it's popped already. we're seeing a pretty big downdraft in new home sales, existing home sales. the glut, if you will, of new homes, has actually materialized. we have an 11-month supply of housing today versus a 5-month supply at the beginning of the year. sellers are lowering their asking prices. so housing, which is the most interest rate-sensitive sector of the economy, katy, has already taken a hit and reversed course. we'll see what else slows down. the personal spending and income data that you referenced just earlier also has slowed a bit. and we're seeing consumers make different choices in their purchases. apparel gluts are obviously around the country and used car prices have started to fall as well. so we're seeing this hit main street already without having to wait with the usual considerable lag that people discuss fed policy about. >> ron insana, always good to see you. thank you very much for showing up for us today. we appreciate it. and any moment, we could get that redacted mar-a-lago search

warrant or affidavit, that is. we'll bring that to you as soon as we get it. we are waiting, just as you are. plus, in arizona on thursday, the website of the republican senate candidate blake masters said he was 100% pro-life and even supported a personhood law. now, our nbc news team has discovered his website was scrubbed. the challenges that republican candidates are facing on abortion rights. candidates are facing on abortion rights. it disrupts my skin with rash. but now, i can disrupt eczema with rinvoq. rinvoq is not a steroid, topical, or injection. it's one pill, once a day, that's effective without topical steroids. many taking rinvoq saw clear or almost-clear skin while some saw up to 100% clear skin. plus, they felt fast itch relief some as early as 2 days. that's rinvoq relief. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots,

some fatal, cancers including lymphoma and skin cancer, death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least one heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq, as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. disrupt the itch and rash of eczema. talk to your doctor about rinvoq. learn how abbvie can help you save. joe biden and democrats in congress just passed a law that lowers costs for healthcare, medicine, and energy bills

by making corporations pay the taxes they owe without raising taxes on any of us making under $400,000 a year. (man 1) oh, this looks like we're in a screen saver. (man 2) yeah, but we need to go higher. (man 1) higher. (man 2) definitely higher. (man 1) we're like yodeling high. [yodeling] yo-de-le-he... (man 2) hey, no. uh-uh, don't do that. (man 1) we should go even higher! (man 2) yeah, let's do it. (both) woah! (man 2) i'm good. (man 1) me, too. (man 2) mm-hm. (vo) adventure has a new look. (man 1) let's go lower. (man 2) lower, that sounds good. (vo) discover more in the all-new subaru outback wilderness. love. it's what makes subaru, subaru. for decades, i've worked at the intersection of domestic violence and homelessness. so when prop 27 promised solutions to homelessness, i took a good, hard look. it's not a solution. 90% of the money goes to the out-of-state corporations who wrote it. very little is left for the homeless. don't let corporations

exploit homelessness to pad their profits. vote no on 27. this morning, president biden met with state and local elected officials to talk about protecting access to reproductive health care on this women's equality day. as democrats lean into messaging about protecting abortion rights while some republicans seem to be trying to downplay their

stances on abortion. the meeting is happening right now. the last example -- the latest example comes from arizona and the republican senate candidate, blake masters. nbc news has reported on some big changes on masters' campaign website, softening his tone on abortion and removing references to some tough restrictions on abortion entirely. on thursday, his website said, i am 100% pro-life. that language is now gone. let me bring in cofounder and ceo of all in together, lauren leader. so lauren, blake masters is now running in the general election. what do you make of the fact that his website suddenly changed? >> well, i think what's happening is republicans are waking up to the reality that overwhelming majorities of americans support abortion rights. and when you look at questions of some of the most extreme bans, like those that have gone into effect in many states, just this week, even republican and

pro-life voters don't support them. and it is a political loser for a republican candidates who are pushing these extreme bans. and i think the longer -- the further we get from a dobbs decision and the more we start hearing these horrific examples of children being forced to carry babies to term, of women being forced to carry fetuses that aren't viable. i mean, just these horrific stories that are beginning to emerge, that are the real impact, the real-world impact of these extreme abortion bans, it's%ing politically toxic. and what we saw in kansas is actually very representative of what we believe we're going to be seeing through the polls that we've been running coming up in the midterm elections. and that message is getting through. >> lauren, a lot of these candidates will talk about laws or stances they have on campaign trails, or what happened on their website. they'll use things like, i'll support a personhood law, which blake masters said he did

support, but you might not understand what that means. so when someone says a personhood law, can you just explain generally what they're talking about? >> right. well, the personhood laws are particularly dangerous, because it's essentially a legal structure for giving fetuses full legal rights and protections and that includes -- can go as far as prosecuting doctors who perform abortions, even where they may believe that there is a medical necessity. and a lot of the rhetoric around abortion laws over the last number of years, you know, has been a political winner for the most part, for republicans. but i think what we see after dobbs is just a complete re-writing of the political rules on this issue. and in places like arizona, and frankly, in many states across the country, it's the independent women voters, those suburban women voters who, as you know and we've talked about before, are so critical in terms of swing votes in closely tied states, purple states.

those kind of extreme abortion bills are an absolute loser with those women. and they are registering women in the states that have the most strict abortion bans are now seeing the biggest surges in voter registration among women. and that spells big trouble for extreme positions and republicans who have supported, you know, really the most hard-core, pro-life legislation that has no exceptions for the life of the mother, for rape and incest, et cetera. these bills don't work. and the real-world impact of them, when you get past philosophy and now post-dobbs, we're living with the consequences, the consequences are pretty terrible. and pretty indefensible for most legislators. >> a lot of democrats are running on this idea that if republicans are elected to majorities in the house and the senate, and win the white house again, that they will make a federal ban on abortions. there are republicans who have said that they're not interested in doing that. how do you navigate that? >> i think it's clearly an initiative that voters are very concerned about.

and going to the ballot box is really the one sort of powerful recourse that voters have in this post-dobb world. and there are a lot of signs they're taking this very seriously. and there have been these amazing polls about fathers that are getting political active over the abortion issue. so i think, look, voters understand that in these moments where state legislatures are going to the extreme, that congress and that democrats holding congress is fundamental to protecting any potential future abortion rights. and i think the threats that this could go further now seem real. you know, for a generation of americans, the end of roe v. wade just seemed inconceivable. and wasn't an especially galvanizing issue for voters on the left in the way that it has been for voters on the right. now that's all changed. because they see that it's real. >> for so long, it had been a single issue for a lot of voters. they voted on that alone on the republican side. lauren, thank you very much for joining us.

appreciate it. and in any minute now, as, everybody saying, we'll get that redacted mar-a-lago search warrant affidavit. it is 11:40. which means the justice department has 20 more minutes to post it. we'll see if they go right up to the deadline. also, one state just took one big step closer to banning gas-powered cars. this is very interesting. don't go away. cars this is very interesting don't go away. aleve x. its revolutionary rollerball design delivers fast, powerful, long-lasting pain relief. aleve it, and see what's possible.

your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire (vo) give your business an advantage right now, with nationwide 5g from t-mobile for business. matching your job description. unlock new insights and efficiency, with leading ultra-capacity 5g coverage. t-mobile for business has 5g that's ready right now.

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. an historic environmental decision from california yesterday. regulators there voted to ban new sales of gas-powered cars by 2035. right now, gas vehicle emissions make up about 40% of california's greenhouse gases and the state wants to lower those numbers to confront the climate crisis. it would also smell a lot better in california. and you would feel a lot better there, as well. how is it going to work, though, exactly? nbc's steve paterson joins us from los angeles, as someone intimately aware with the smog problems out there, i bet a lot of folks are welcoming this.

steve, what are they saying? >> they are. i'm not so sure it would alleviate the smell entirely in los angeles, particularly, but i think it would do some work. this is a big deal. it's a big deal for a lot of reasons. i think governor newsom sees this as a moment in history, not just some progressive policy or an aspirational goal of his. i mean, he sees this -- he would say that my generation, my kids, my grand kids would view the gas-powered car the way i might view a rotary or a landline telephone. that it is a relic. he says that car emissions that produce 40% of greenhouse gases in this state, the largest leader of carbon dioxide in the state of california, he says he can reduce that by 50% per each car, in the state of california. that would be massive. and massive considering the fact that several states would likely follow california's lead. california has the ability to set its own air quality. other states in the past have followed. at least a dozen. but maybe more. maybe 15, maybe 17.

they want to do that incrementally. as you see on your screen, they have these goalposts that they want to meet year by year. so 35% by 2026, 68% by 2030, and the full thing by 2035. we're at right now about 16%. so think about this. in just 13 years, he wants to go from 16% to 100%. that's a long road when you factor in the fact that infrastructure improvements have to be made, you have to get people actually willing to buy electric vehicles. a large population here in california, when you factor in the rest of the country, they're invested into electronic vehicles. but, i mean, for most people, it's prohibitively expensive. the average cost of a gas-guzzling car is a little over $40,000. for an ev, it's something like $60,000. not to mention supply chain issues, and not to mention the grid which is still mostly independent on fossil fuels, plus millions of people plugging

the cars in at the same time. so the aspirational worth of saying, this is a moment where we can end a large chunk of reliance on oil, a large chunk of reliance on oil dictatorships, on fossil fuels entirely, and do that for not only california but a larger portion of the country, the governor and if regulators here in california see that as a road that they want to go down and something that they're very proud of. >> the inflation reduction act gives subsidies to a lot of these electric vehicles for those making under a certain income. there's that. 30 years is a long time to innovate for the grid issues for the supply chain issues, and to make those vehicles cost a lot less, not to mention, steve, i had a chance to drive an fully electric f-150 the other day, fully electric -- >> reporter: cool. >> -- and it was awesome. i'll say right now, it was awesome. first of all, the cab itself was giant. i felt like i was in a limo. and the pickup on it, it went from 0 to 60 in it felt like

three seconds. it floored and pushed you back in your seat. it was very cool. made me kind of want a pickup truck, although i don't know where i would park it. >> reporter: does it freak you out how silent and quiet those cars are. it's a little weird? >> but i would actually be able to hear you better during your live shot without all the traffic behind you. there is that, as well. >> reporter: touche. >> it's better for your skin. get rid of the smog. all right, steve. i'll let you go. thank you very much. a new lawsuit today between the makers -- thank you for listening to me. i appreciate that, everybody. i've got a lot of thoi thoughts this. a new lawsuit between the makers of the two new covid vaccines in the united states. moderna announced today it is suing pfizer and biontech for patent infringement, claiming that the partner companies copied its technology to create its rival covid vaccine. the patents in question filed between 2010 and 2016 were used

to develop mrna technology, which was crucial in developing the moderna vaccine. they allege that they exceed the science without permission. the script says we are "x" minutes, i'll do the math. we are 11 minutes away from the top of the hour. and the deadline is almost here for the release of the redacted mar-a-lago search warrant affidavit. i've got to tell you, guys, i thought we would have it before now. maybe we'll get it in the next couple of minutes. we'll talk about the political and the legal implications for donald trump once again as we anticipate this right after the break.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

all right. right now the department of justice seems to be running out the clock on its new deadline to release the redacted affidavit justifying the search of the former president's estate that got under 8 minutes to do so. let's bring in our guests. it's been a while, charlie. good to see you. i want to start with ryan, though. ryan, what's going on? >> it's a very good question.

there's like three docket entries if you really want to go through it here. there are three docket entries but we don't know what they are. they are still under seal. it could be that they have met this deadline coming up now t minus 8 minutes and filed something but maybe want the judge to look at it. perhaps there is a change in what they were going to present even though this was agreed upon apparently what they were going to put forward. basically the judge and justice department were on the same page about this but perhaps they caught something late in the game and wanted to make sure they dotted all their is and crossed all their ts before they put this out into the public. you just really want to make sure that this document is properly redacted because there certainly have been instances before in which the government has not properly redacted things awe move that document over to microsoft word or new adobe acrobat and suddenly you have the text behind the blacked out

documents. i think they are basically making sure everything is lined up. unfortunately, they didn't even hit the c block here. i was expecting a lot earlier in the show here to actually come out and be published. using show jargon as c block happens around the middle of the hour at 30 usually if the timings are all correct and the anchor listens to cues. charlie, what are you looking for? i know that there's been warnings about what we are going to see, but it was surprising that judge reinhart who had said the doj redactions that get submitted could ultimately just be gibberish, it is surprising i think that some of it is going to get released. what are you expecting? charlie? >> i'm sorry. i have a bad connection. can you repeat the question please? >> what are you expecting? >> we'll see.

obviously, but i am expecting sections people are most interested in, what is the actual evidence they have? who's talking in the trump camp to them that told them these documents were still there and where to find them? we're not going to see that. it's going to be blacked out. i expect we will see a lengthy discussion of what we already know but with perhaps greater detail. the back and forth of the government's attempt to get these documents, you know, there's been leaking of certain letters showing back in may and june and so forth they were saying this to each other. what the government was asking, how the trump camp was responding. that sort of stuff. that trump already knows it's about because he was in one-half of that conversation. would be safe i think for the justice department to let out so we may see a great deal of information about the back and forth and the timeline of how we got here which may have implications for the second of the three charges that are cited in the warrant, obstruction of justice or of government efforts

charge or potential charge if it shows they were really trying and the trump camp just kept not complying and saying they complied when they hadn't. that sort of thing will probably have a greater chance of surviving redaction process. >> we only have a couple more seconds before a hard break. what are you expecting? >> not much. i think the people who have already spoken around what we know the doj is going to be trying to protect with respect to witnesses and the integrity of the investigation are absolutely correct. i know that there have been calls publicly from the media and from both sides or really from trump land around the desire or whole desire when you talk about trump to release more information. in all reality that is a bad idea and i want to explain quickly for our viewers number one if the information is released there are no winners. it is almost like taking a dish out of the oven before it is fully baked.

it is going to compromise the investigation and what the doj is able to do effectively. then of course it is not going to bode well for trump either. anybody who is asking for that doesn't know what they're talking about. >> gentlemen, thank you very much. we are going to take a quick break and be refreshing our inboxes and the docket on the court website as well to see what we get. don't go anywhere. andrea mitchell will be here in a moment but i will be back at 2:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc. stay with us. i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance

through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed.

and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information. in order for small businesses to thrive, they need to be smart. efficient. agile. and that's never been more important than it is right now. so for a limited time, comcast business is introducing small business savings. call now to get powerful internet for just 39 dollars a month. with no contract. and a money back guarantee.

all on the largest, fastest reliable network. from the company that powers more businesses than anyone else. call and start saving today. comcast business. powering possibilities. and good day. this is andrea mitchell reports in washington. the affidavit the justice department used to win approval for the fbi's search of mar-a-lago is being released at any moment by order of the justice department approving it by the federal judge magistrate on the case. much of it is likely to be redacted to conceal critical information about sources and methods the government used to