stick around for "morning joe." i think all of you should stick around for "morning joe" as well. thanks for getting up for "way too early" this morning. they say themselves, in the papers that they filed, that this is under the presidential records act, so what they did was to try and criminalize donald trump as they always do, they found these three mundane statutes, espionage, and the two others, obstruction, and they're trying to claim that there was some sort of criminal activity. >> a trump attorney spins the new defense for the former president that espionage and obstruction are only minor offenses. we'll have the new developments overnight from trump's legal team and go live to the courthouse where today's hearing over a special master will take place. meanwhile, trump continues to undercut his own excuses, for why he had classified documents at his florida club at home. remember when trump's allies

accused the fbi of planting evidence? well now trump admits the documents were stored in cartons. remember when trump's lawyer told the justice department that classified material had been returned? well, investigators found more. lots more. remember when trump's team insisted the documents were safely secured? well, his lawyer now admits the former president frequently had guests in an office where highly classified papers were found in his desk. and once again, he does not deny having them. good morning. and welcome to "morning joe." it is thursday, september 1st. can you believe it? >> no, no i can't believe it. just like nobody can believe any of the excuses that have all been thrown around. i love yesterday, willie, his only argument is, not saying why he had the documents, not saying why he didn't return the

documents, not saying why he lied to the fbi when they were asking for the documents, and they were moving them, and instead, he goes oh, oh, it's all a setup, they took those out of the cartons that i stole from the white house, and they threw all of the papers on the floor. well, of course we know, everybody knows that it's a -- the guy is desperate, and has absolutely no explanation for any of this that has happened. it is why he is in such deep legal trouble right now. >> spinning, spinning, spinning. >> i'm confused, too, i thought the fbi planted all of that stuff at mar-a-lago but now he is saying they are in his cartons that were there and the fbi took them out. and also mika pointed out, back to the opening comment from trump's attorney, espionage and obstruction of justice mundane offenses and they got him on technicalities. espionage and obstruction of

justice. to the point joe was making, donald trump did seem to counter three of his own arguments that he had been making when he posted on social media yesterday, he claimed, on social media, that the documents were quote sloppily thrown on the floor, and that agents quote took them out of cartons and spread them around on the carpet. this of course goes against his previous argument that the documents that had been planted, that they were properly stored under lock and key, and it also contradicts the sworn letter that everything had been returned to the government. his attorneys promised that. charlie savage of "the new york times" noted this, trump is no so mad about the optics. people may not understand it was the fbi that spread out the files from box 2 a to take a standard evidence photo, that he is ignoring the legal implications of coming very close to acknowledging that he knew he had them in his office. he is just spinning wildly at this point, joe, trying to grasp on to whatever comes across his desk. because as you point out, there is no good excuse to have top

secret documents at your country club. >> well, again, we're just going to keep repeating it on the show, and until somebody comes out, until donald trump or rudy giuliani, or a trump lawyer, or some supporter. >> new lawyer. >> new lawyers, old lawyers, any lawyers come out and explain why donald trump improperly took government documents, top secret documents, classified documents, from the white house, and took them out of the white house, a government facility, and you know, it is interesting, yesterday, mika, a fox news host who i think began in good faith who was saying let's talk about donald trump's documents, something along those lines. and karl rove, live long republican cut her off and said wait a second, let's be really clear about one thing. none of those documents are donald trump's documents. none of those documents are

donald trump's documents. you cannot take, as karl rove said, again, republican strategist, you cannot take one document out of the white house or a government building if it's the government's document, and so there's absolutely no reason why he would have box after box after box of these documents, and then lie to the national archives and the fbi, saying oh, we returned all of the documents, when he hadn't come close to doing that. >> and there is also questions about trump's lawyers who certified certain documents were there and not there, and then those certifications have been ruled completely false. so there will be questions because one wonders and you don't want to get in front of it, but those who know trump well, can safely predict that there is a chance he will blame someone else. >> and there are lawyers that signed documents that ended up being false, and they had knowledge of that, they're in

big trouble. >> yes. >> you don't lie to the fbi. you don't lie to the d.o.j. without some legal consequences following. >> joining us from outside the courthouse in west palm beach, florida, nbc news correspondent vaughn hilliard, and with us, nbc news justice and intelligence correspondent ken dilanian and the host of "way too early," the author of "the big lie," white house bureau chief at "politico," jonathan lemire. vaughn, we'll start with you. bring us up to date on where everything stands in terms of what was seized, seen, and reported out of mar-a-lago. >> here at the southern district of florida, the judge, a trump appointed district judge, who was appointed by the former president just weeks after the 2020 election, she will be the one hearing the special master hearing this afternoon. you saw 48 hours ago, in which the department of justice laid out over the course of 40 pages

its case for the unnecessary move to appoint a special master to go through the trove of documents that were acquired there, on 8. why? the d.o.j. has said they have already done this. the trump team, they want a special blast master in order to go through the records seized to determine what was attorney-client privilege, what should these investigators not have their eyes on, but the issue is here that the team has sorted through the documents and they set aside a small number of them in which the investigators will not take their, put their eyes on. but this is the situation here. you guys mentioned, the trump statement last night, in which he directly said, and acknowledged that, in fact, those very documents were taken out of his office. but out of cartons in his words. two months earlier though on june 3rd, christina bobb, officially the cuss toldian of

records signed on his behalf said under oath in a sworn affidavit that all appropriate documents had been surrendered to the department of justice. of course, when you're looking at that filing from 48 hours ago, the department of justice says that they had acquired more than double the number of classified documents that had been turned over two months previous, as part of that june 3rd setup meeting between trump's lawyers, and the department of justice. but one other note here. when we are talking about the legality of this here, and the potential danger, the department of justice is laying out, and the need to not have a special master but instead to be able to move this case promptly along, the department of justice is citing the concerns around national security here. saying that there are potential sources of important national security information that could be in danger, and that is why the office of the director of national intelligence is currently reviewing these very documents that were seized by the fbi here.

and i think almost in a way, lena hobba, a trump attorney, not working on this specific case yet is appearing last night on fox news, on sean hannity, and i think that she almost, maybe unintentionally, but acknowledged the importance and the potential access that visitors to mar-a-lago had to these very documents. take a listen last night talking to sean hannity. >> did the fbi do that? or was that the way that room looked before they went in there? do you have any first-hand knowledge. >> i'm sure you've seen the press today. i do have first-hand knowledge, as you know, i have been down, there i'm down there frequently, i have never seen that, i have never, ever seen that. that is not the way his office looks. anybody that knows president trump's office, he has guests frequently there, it's just a joke. they literally must have gone in and taken out documents they wanted, or cover letters, as it is, and put it about, so that the public believes that this is top secret documents that were

on his floor. it's ridiculous. i can tell you personally, it's ridiculous. i've never seen that. >> that is one of the dumbest things i've ever heard in my life. i mean there is literally an fbi exhibit that says 2 a, anybody that's ever seen one episode of "law and order" knows they get evidence, they put it out, they take pictures of the evidence, on the floor. everybody knows that. is this, i'm sorry, but i know you're a reporter, you can't say this, i just asked the rhetorical question, is this really what trump's defenders have been reduced to? >> and she says guests frequently visit that very office. >> great. >> i mean, yes, i mean the idea though that people saw this picture, thinking that donald trump left those on the floor, of course, nobody thought that at all. again, they're desperately

trying to find anything for defense. but you're right though, while making this stupid assertion, that the fbi wanted the people to think that's where he left them, which nobody thought that, she also of course admitted that people went into this room frequently where there were top secret documents stored. >> there's a question there that has been put out ultimately, talking about christina bobb, the trump lawyer, the custodian of the records there, to what extent did she actually know whether the documents had been surrendered or not? you know, but that's where the other attorney here, working on the new york attorney general's case, so it is not quite clear what she actually knows about the documents related to the search warrant execution related to the national archives documents that they wanted to

secure, at the same time, alina habba actually i think is another interesting character, because she, on may 5th of this year, as part of her efforts in the new york attorney general's case, guys, she actually signed another sworn affidavit in which she said she went through closets, through dresser drawers, through the office desk, and everything to look for relevant documents related to that trump organization case in the new york attorney general's office, which suggests that she would have come into contact, as an independent citizen, separate from this case, could have come into contact with these classified documents. which again hints at the very heart of the question here. who had access to these documents. if alina habba a lawyer working on a different case, and we know who had access to the documents and we don't have the answer as to what these documents even pertain at this time. >> nbc's vaughn hilliard, west

palm beach, florida, thanks so much. ken dilanian, i will let you respond to the stunning pathetic argument that they threw these documents all over the floor. donald trump made the argument yesterday. the fbi haphazardly threw the documents on the floor. no that is an evidence photo. but part of the filing from trump's lawyers were on privacy, that donald trump had the right to privacy, and the fbi couldn't come in and take documents, effectively that belonged to him in his private home. of course, the documents don't belong to him. we can explain that again. is there anything in this new filing from the trump attorneys that says to you, maybe there will be a special master, maybe the justice department will take another look at how they're reviewing these documents? >> in the filing, no, but i mean i think it's very possible there will be a special master. the justice department, after arguing that there shouldn't be one, in the last set of arguments said by the way,

judge, if you grant one, here are some conditions we would like to you impose, and in fact, the trump team agreed with some of those conditions. but the trump team importantly wants the special master to look at this issue of executive privilege, rather than just attorney-client privilege. which would really complicate things, and which most legal experts say does not exist here. because as the justice department said, there's no claim of executive privilege when you're giving these documents to the executive branch. that's never been asserted. and also as we learned in the watergate case with richard nixon, a criminal investigation always trumps executive privilege, at least according to the supreme court. i thought one most interesting things about this blust eerie trump legal argument document that was filed last night, and by the way, one of the lawyers on this case, james, was the former head of the justice department's organized crime section. so no slouch. but this, this document was rather bizarre. but one thing that it did try to say is that the justice department is seeking to

criminalize what these lawyers characterized as a routine dispute between a president and the archives over presidential records. and so at one point, of course there is classified documents, they're presidential records, that's inherent of the idea of presidential records. that's really interesting because as you guys know, donald trump has been arguing on truth social and allies have been arguing that he declassified all of these documents. that argument now seems to have gone away. they did not make that in this document last night, they are not arguing as far as i can tell that these documents were declassified which is huge, because they're acknowledging that they're classified, whatever they say, when trump was the former president, he no longer had access to classified documents. period, end of story. there was no skiff, no special room in mar-a-lago where those documents could have been stored. and as you guys said, they were not his documents. they were the property of the united states of america. >> and nothing routine about

this. just asked two former cia director, ask a war hero, ask the head of the national security agency, how routine it is when you mishandle classified documents, and how ironic, of course, from the president, who went around chatting, lock her up, because of classified documents on hillary clinton's laptop, that donald trump said the reason why he couldn't have had david petraeus the secretary of state is because he mishandled classified documents. around the other generals that he had already, and the other generals that he had already hired for his administration, donald trump said they wouldn't work with him, because the offense was so extreme. so it shows you, again, the hypocrisy, and also, let's just underline again the fact that donald trump and his lawyers are reduced to such a pathetic nondefense defense.

saying, suggesting the fbi came in and put the evidence on the floor of his office and messed up his office and took pictures so we would think that's, you know, that's how he left it. just for donald trump to know, when he sees murder scenes, on television, and there's yellow tape there, nobody thinks the yellow tape around the body to show where the body was, was left by the murderer. that's what the police and the fbi do when they show up. okay? >> so there's an overarching -- >> it doesn't work. >> -- problem here. and the responsibility for the d.o.j. is a top secret classified document, if they were mishanled or removed from the government, from the white house, from the very safe locations that they are stored, there is a responsibility really

for our allies, for even the message that is sent to our foes, that there has to be consequences, if something like this had been done. and right now, there's no denial that president trump took something that was not his, that belongs to the u.s. government, that does not belong to him. >> nobody is denying it. >> in all of the arguments, they are all kind of like one would perhaps be a way to mud tal, look for something else, look here, look there, and there are basic questions, just basic questions that were made, and really stand out here, on fox and friends, co-host steve doocy, had this line of questioning yesterday for the governor of south dakota. take a look. >> ultimately, it comes down to why did he have all of that secret stuff at mar-a-lago? you know, i know his team had said that they declassified it,

but that's news to the agency that those documents belonged to. and governor, he had, he had apparently three classified documents in his desk, and as brian detailed, the stuff on the floor shows five yellow folders marked top secret and another one that says sci, secret compartmented information. and apparently the former president went through them in january, why wouldn't he say you know what i really need to turn that back over. why do you have all of that stuff at mar-a-lago? >> that's why i think it is important that this is transparent. and that we do have someone who is outside of the d.o.j. looking at this, and talking to people, what is this information, we don't know what was in there, we don't know, and president trump declassified all of this information, let's find out really what the process is, what is right, what is precedent, that other presidents have

followed, and make sure that there is -- >> governor, i don't think any president has ever carted off that many documents to their house after they left the presidency. >> and if they had, here's the thing. they would have been arrested. the d.o.j. would have gone after them. and again, there you hear, mik, once again, the argument, i think he declassified it. no, as was pointed out, they come up with a thousand different excuses. >> that actually confirmed that he has them. >> and each excuse confirms that the last excuse was a lie. and they keep building excuse upon excuse upon excuse, that actually knocks the foundation under the previous lies that they told. >> each excuse, joe, confirms he had, he never says i didn't have these, i didn't do this, he only confirms that he has them, and he took them. >> but here's his biggest

problem and i want to show another clip but let me go to ken dilanian on this first, because unlike me, he knows what he's talking about when talking about the law. i should have paid closer attention in law school. mika just said that he never said that he didn't have the documents. he did though tell the fbi that, the d.o.j., that he didn't have any more documents. and at the end of the day, & and charlie savage has been writing about this and i know you've been talking about it as well, this is at the heart of donald trump's legal jeopardy. his danger. the obstruction of justice. we could argue what is in these letters, whether it's love letters to kim jong un, whether it's nuclear secrets, whether it's secrets about emanuel macron's love life, whatever it

is, okay, we'll find out on another day. we have no idea. but we do know, right now, today, according to d.o.j. filings, that he obstructed justice, he lied to the d.o.j., and said that they had turned everything back and when they came back, they found this extraordinary filing that you've been talking about, twice as many documents that were classified, that he had turned over, they found them at mar-a-lago. >> yes, joe, that's 100% right. even though you have been correctly pointing out that anyone else who took classified documents home would by now probably be under the jail, i mean we have plenty of examples of that, in coverage over the years, the real issue here, it's lear the justice department was treating trump differently. it's a bottom line, that is clear from the record, they gave him every opportunity that they would not have afforded a regular citizen, and we can argue about whether that was a good thing or a bad thing, it's

a fact. they first asked nicely and then served grand jury subpoenas. the reason we are at this place where we had a search warrant served and this massive scandal is erupting because the justice department felt they were lied to. and as you know, look, as a reporter, if i'm lied to, by a government official, i'm not going to forget. that and that is going to become my top priority is, to ferret out what happened and why the lie, and get to the bottom of it. the fbi agents and prosecutors are the same way. when they feel lied to in an investigation, that almost becomes more important than the underlying crime. it's a corruption of our system of justice, we rely on people to comply with grand jury subpoenas and the law requires them to. and in this case, as we know the justice department said they believe that there was an obstruction here, that they were misled. they haven't pointed the finger directly at donald trump. but who else could have done it unless we were to believe that one of his lawyers sighted under oath in the filing to the d.o.j.

and lawyers know they put their license on the line when they sign an affidavit saying something is true and it is very likely the lawyer who sign had is now a witness in this case and can no longer represent donald trump. so this is absolutely the crux of it now. it is not just a case about classified documents. about t-is a case about lying and about obstruction of justice. and that makes it a much harder decision for the justice department down the road, as to whether they indict this case. because you can make an argument that, look, the president was once entitled to these documents, he made some mistakes and mishandle and maybe we shouldn't charge them but once you prove that somebody lied to the d.o.j., how do you walk away from that? >> we heard from all of the reporting that the donald trump believed that these documents were his, they belong to me, and that privacy argument, we heard it last night from his attorneys, well, karl rove was talking about that last night, on fox news. here's what he said. >> that's the situation, that

the d.o.j. is investigating and the trump lawyers have their feelings what was rightfully his and able to take. >> but let's be clear. >> go ahead. >> none of these government documents are his to have taken. i agree with the deputy director who said that a lot of the former president's problems of his own creation. the presidential records act of 1978, you cannot take original documents out of the white house with you when you leave the white house, whether the president of the united states or any of his aides. that's foreboden. under the law. in there are no criminal penalties for violating it. but why the former president packed up 20, 30-some odd bojs of material when he had to right to do so and that's what the government asserts in the filing, saying the former president, asked for the return of the documents, as he said in the filing, they were created during his administration, and the response to the government, it should be the response of the government, in their filing, it was that that's evidence that was not his, if they were developed in the white house

during his time of the presidency, under the presidential records act, they belong to the government, not to him. >> there it is, joe. this is so clear-cut, that this will are people who, that there are people who have defended him a lot in the last years can't do it on this because it is so plain he can't have the documents in his house. and we showed steve doocy earlier, explaining to his co-hosts yesterday, you can't have top secret documents in the top drawer of your desk at mar-a-lago. so this is breaking through in places where some other stories about donald trump had not. >> i mean everybody knows that. everybody knows he can't have those documents. and jonathan lemire, you know, you've spent a lot of time covering donald trump, you've written a book about him, you've written the book on "the big lie," mika and obviously knew him for a decade before, before

he was, even ran for office, and it would be easy for people who knew trump to say, well, you know, the guy's just so arrogant, and he's just so self-centered, that he thinks if he created these documents inside the white house, then he could take them home. and so i guess that that would be an argument, but for the fact, and i keep going back to this point, that i know trump's lawyers understand is his biggest legal challenge now, except for the fact that if that had been it, he could have had that fight, and said yes, i have all of these documents, they're mine, i created it, i disagree with the law that i signed, i disagree with the law that i signed and made actually penalties even tougher for people who mishandle classified documents which is a side note, we don't even talk about it enough, but for the fact that

the fbi and the d.o.j. said after they get some documents back, after begging him to return documents for months is, that? are those all of documents you have? and trump lawyers say yes, that's all we have. and then, they have people inside the joint at mar-a-lago, telling the fbi, that they were being lied to by donald trump. they go in. and they find twice as many classified documents. they find them inside. more than the amount they had originally had returned. and so you can't even put this off to donald trump's arrogance. saying he thought the documents were his. because you have the lie that he had returned all of the documents, and of course, that has obstruction of justice, it screams obstruction of justice

an at the end of the day trump's biggest legal challenges. >> and it is not just signing the bill to make the penalties tougher for making it tougher for classified information and it was the whole campaign. and you're right that trump's arrogance possibly could have been a plausible defense fore part of this and those who spent time with trump and covered trump and spent time at his properties, he is a pack rat, and souvenirs and fake magazine covers and likes to show off at guests and part of a group of reporters that he brought to the oval office and showed off the kim jong-un letters, documents we should not have been seeing, and the documents that the national archives have retrieved and now the shifting lies, he and the attorneys, and some who will have to recuse themselves

from the case because they are in legal trouble and cannot get their stories straight. the approach in terms of using as president, throw heing things up against the wall, various excuses and hoping one would stick and you might get one or two to break through on fox news, in the conservative media, and be amplified to muddy the waters. that doesn't work in the legal context. in fact, that only makes it more damaging. as an example, he for a while there was saying he had declassified everything everything. we just saw the picture put up by the d.o.j., the evidence photo, those documents laid out on the carpets with the cover letters saying top secret or classified, if he declassified them, that would have been marked on the cover. that stamp would be there. and we are not seeing that. and these are lies or shifting stories that have previously gotten him out of political trouble, this time has only increased his legal jeopardy. >> and more confirmation, you know, willie, we've shown a clip

of karl rove, we've shown a clip of steve doocy, just clearly, saying what he's done is improper, and talked about earlier this week, ben shapiro, and brit hume, telling republicans, if you want to win the election, you need to put donald trump in your rearview mirror. we have andrew mccarthy this morning, obviously a fierce trump defender, on legal issues, talking about how there is a serious obstruction case for the reasons that i just pointed out. that would not be difficult to prove. and suggesting that in the new york post, suggesting that the d.o.j., it is not a slam dunk, pretty close to having a slam dunk case of obstruction, that they could easily prove against donald trump now, and in the

washington times, another very conservative publication, is the headline, why donald trump will soon be indicted. and it's by andrew napolitano, and in support of the governmental areas application, reveals he will soon be indict bid a federal grand jury for three crimes, removing and concealing national defense information, and giving to those who are not legally able to possess it and for those who are legally entitled to retrieve. it and again, if you're keeping score at home, that's fox news, the new york post, and the washington times. three of the fiercest pro-trump media outlets, all publishing pieces, or talking about how

donald trump first of all had no right to have these documents and secondly he is going to be indicted for obstruction at the very least. >> well, because this is undeniable. that photograph we've been showing is a crime scene effectively. and just based on what the justice department has pushed out into the public, what we know publicly, leaves a lot of people to wonder how merrick garland could not indict the former president, and i don't want to get ahead of ourselves, and speaking of those publication, "the wall street journal" just crossed with a new poll, that perhaps shows the heavy implications of this politically on donald trump. we're seeing big numbers up for joe biden, widening his margin in a potential head-to-head with donald trump, and independents swinging massively toward democrats right now. >> nbc's ken dilanian, thank you very much for coming on this morning with your insight. we appreciate it. and coming up, president biden will deliver a major prime time address tonight, on the battle

for the soul of america. >> we'll tell you what we can expect to hear. plus democrats pick up a seat in the house. defeating sara pailen in a special election. >> democrats don't usually win in alaska. >> it's a weird one. how the republicans attempt at a comeback turned into an upset for the democrats. >> i still, i will admit, i still don't understand the ranked voting stuff. very convoluted. >> and later this morning, we will speak with the mayor of jackson, mississippi, amid the ongoing water crisis there. we'll asking when the capital city can expect reliable water again. and former ukrainian president, our guest this morning, amid ukraine's counter offensive to regain the russian-occupied south. you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back. you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back.

republicans in congress call them "entitlements." a "ponzi scheme." the women and men i served with in combat, we earned our benefits. just like people earned their social security and medicare benefits. but republicans in congress have a plan to end so-called "entitlements" in just five years. social security, medicare, even veterans benefits. go online and read the republican plan for yourself. joe biden is fighting to protect social security, medicare and veterans benefits. call joe biden and tell him to keep fighting for our benefits. moderate to severe eczema still disrupts my skin. despite treatment it disrupts my skin with itch. 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. only at vanguard, you're more than just an investor—you're an owner. we got this, babe. that means that your dreams are ours too. and our financial planning tools can help you reach them. that's the value of ownership. the unknown is not empty.

it's a storm that crashes, and consumes, replacing thought with worry. but one thing can calm uncertainty. an answer. uncovered through exploration, teamwork, and innovation. an answer that leads to even more answers. mayo clinic. you know where to go.

it's the all-new subway series menu! 12 irresistible new subs... like #11 subway club. piled with turkey, ham and roast beef. this sub isn't slowing down time any time soon. i'll give it a run for its money. my money's on the sub. it's subway's biggest refresh yet. so we need something super distinctive... dad's work, meet daughter's playtime.

thankfully, meta portal auto pans and zooms to keep you in frame. and the meeting on track. meta portal. the smart video calling device that makes work from home work for you. the great city of philadelphia, pennsylvania. with just over two months until november's midterm elections. a new survey shows a major momentum shift for democrats, just crossing this morning, the latest "the wall street journal" poll shows 47% of registered voters say if the election were held today, they would vote for the democratic candidate. that's compared to 44% who would vote republican. a big swing from march, when republicans held a 5-point lead over democrats. a big part of that shift comes from a change among independent voters who now favor democratic candidates by 3%. back in march, that lead was 12%.

for republicans. a 15% swing since just march. and when asked about a potential re-match between donald trump and joe biden, in 2024, voters say they prefer the current president, 50% to 44%, in march, the two were tied. also in this poll joe biden's approval number up to a 45%. "the wall street journal" poll that just crossed this morning. >> and a lot of different reasons, i suppose, this is happening. and look at the january 6th hearings, but on top of that, we just have to keep going back to the fact that roe was overturned. >> yes. >> a half century guarantee of privacy rights for women. where women would make decisions about their bodies, about their pregnancy, about their lives, and now you have state legislators, men, old men in state legislatures, who are making those decisions for the most part. and we americans don't do well with having a right to privacy

taken away after a half century. that has to be a big part of it. we talked about the extremism on guns. we talked about the extremism on violent rhetoric. you look at lindsey graham talking about republican riots, that republicans are going to riot in the streets if they don't get their way if the law is applied to donald trump, donald trump also of course pushing that narrative as well. and also, i say this at the end, because i'm going to go back to ben shapiro said earlier this week when he said republicans should move away from donald trump, these days, there's negative partisanship. people don't vote for the most part for legislation that is passed. they vote against a candidate. they vote against the party. and right now, mika, you're looking at a lot of independents who shifted dramatically, i'm sure you're looking at a lot of suburban voters, younger voters in this poll, have moved very quickly, i will say in that

case, there's no doubt, there's no denying this, i think the numbers back it up, actually the student loan forgiveness, i think that has helped joe biden with younger voters where he had been getting absolutely hammered. so whether you think that is a good idea or not, for joe biden and the democrats a very good idea. long way to go. but if these numbers hold over the next couple of months, then it's less likely that you're going to have that massive red wave that we were all expecting six months ago, and that the republicans should be enjoying. >> yes. and the women, the votes of women, i think will absolutely resonate in the midterms across the board. joining us now white house correspondent for reuters, jeff mason, and jeff, if i'm correct, tonight's address to the nation is a white house event, and if so, what exactly will the president be focusing on, and

what will he not be focusing on? >> yes, you're spot on about that. it is a white house event. he's going to focus on restoring the soul of america. i think despite the fact that it is an official event, you can also view it as the kickoff to president biden's re-emergence on the campaign trail, ahead of the midterms, the topic of the soul of america is one that has been a common theme for him up through the 2020 election, and he kicked off, he started talking about that, in an atlantic op-ed, right after the charlottesville riots, and this is something that is near and dear to the president's heart, and it's an opportunity for him to sort of frame the narrative, ahead of the midterm elections, about what democrats are doing, what republicans are doing, and his pledge to uphold democracy, and use that as something as a contrasting theme to what he had views as the other party and the former president are doing.

>> hey, jeff, it's jonathan. because it is an official white house event, you're right, it seems unlikely that he will mention donald trump by name or get into the phenomenon the brandon memes that have heartened white house staff in recent weeks, talk to us more about the contrasts and tonight's theme is the soul of america, which we have heard this president use quite a bit before, but there are specific topics here, where he and his aide have gone out of their way to say look, the gop does not speak for the common american, that is on abortion rights, that's on guns and others. tell us more about how they try to frame this going into the stretch run. >> well, and you just mentioned abortion rights, as mika did earlier as well, karine jean-pierre the white house press secretary mentioned that from the proceed yum and trying to be careful not to get into deep into politics as a government spokesman, she mentioned that as an example of rights being taken away, and tying that theme into restoring the soul of america and i think

you've got multiple topics, jonathan, from that, to the string of successes that the president has had legislatively on gun control, on climate change, and overall, it's this broad theme of democracy, and pointing, or painting the democratic party as supporters of democracy, and the rep cane party and the particularly quote-unquote maga extremists is not, and you saw him do that earlier this week, when specifically tying the democratic support for efforts to reduce gun violence, and saying that you can't be in favor of the police, while also defending what happened on january 6th. all of those are of a piece. and i think you'll see that sort of summed up tonight in the president's remarks. >> white house correspondent for reuters thank you very much. we will be watching the address

tonight. and up next we go live too ukraine as the european nuclear power plant, the dangerous trip, former president of ukraine, petro poroshenko joins us and how the counter offensive stands right now when "morning joe" returns. when moderate to severe ulcerative colitis persists... put it in check with rinvoq, a once-daily pill. when uc got unpredictable,... i got rapid symptom relief with rinvoq. check. when uc held me back... i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq. check. and when uc got the upper hand... rinvoq helped visibly repair the colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief. lasting, steroid-free remission. and a chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check. check. and check. 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 1 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. put uc in check and keep it there, with rinvoq. ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq. and learn how abbvie could help you save. i typed in my dad's name... and i found his childhood home. he's been wondering about the address for seventy years... (chuckle) and i found it in five minutes. travel back in time in no time with the 1950 census on ancestry.

it's the all-new subway series menu! 12 irresistible new subs... like #9 the champ. rotisserie style chicken double monterey cheddar. the champ is truly made for a champ. gee, thanks chuck. who said anything about you? it's subway's biggest refresh yet.

it is 10 minutes before the top of the hour. international inspectors are inching their way toward that threatened nuclear plant in ukraine. local reports say shelling erupted in the area today, delaying their arrival. and prompting the emergency shutdown of the reactor. intense clashes with russian forces have triggered widespread concerns about a potential meltdown. it comes as ukrainian forces mount their counter offensive in

the south. russia claims to have shot down several of ukraine's helicopters. joining us now, the former president of ukraine petro poroshenko, thank you very much for being on once again with us, sir. if you could give us an update on how the ukrainian forces are doing especially in the south. >> thank you very much indeed for the invitation. and now the main event happening in the south in the region where we concentrated the biggest group of the brigade, this is the militarized artillery brigade. and everything has to be possible, because of our partnership with countries like the u.s., and now we have a combination of the efforts of the departments, and the bravery of ukrainian soldiers, it is

giving us a unique opportunity which we don't have before. and also all of ukraine including myself doing a lot to help our military to provide support for the counter-offensive. and me and my team, we supply almost 100 trucks to help, to howitzers, cannons, the professional care wear, and that is the demonstration that everyone now here in ukraine is a soldier. and we have only the beginning of it. this is only an artillery shelling. and a few villages was taken by ukrainian, armed forces and we will keep the fingers crossed for the success of ukraine. at the same time, we keep and ruin the russian plan to capture

donetssk, region, to capture donbas, and we addressed the concern, meeting with the people, meeting with the soldiers, and i want to assure that we do not, we are not going to give any tiny piece of ukrainian soil to russians. >> not giving an inch for sure. and what about the possibility of taking back land that was annexed by russia that was taken back in 2014, how much of a possibility is it to really gain ground in former ukrainian territory. if you could talk a little bit about the strength and the resolve, or lack thereof, in russian forces. >> just want to assure that this is definitely happening, and i guess under my view, when i was the president, and the supreme commander in chief of the ukrainian armed offices, we have

two-thirds of the occupied donbas, and including donetsk and mariupol and now the ukrainian soldiers are full of enthusiasm and new opportunities we received with the himars, with the new artillery, and we definitely expect, with the meeting in a few days, that we also expect that the new decision about the training of ukrainian soldiers, while they're looking at anti-aircraft missiles, and we will restore fully the territorial integrity of ukraine. please don't have any doubt. because it's extremely important to stop putin and not allow him to go to europe. and not allow him to paint the

whole democratic world as otherwise. there is russian aggression. >> the iaea, the international atomic energy association says it cannot get access yet to europe's largest nuclear power plant that sits in ukraine and ukrainians say that is because russians are shelling that site. how concerned are you about a potential catastrophe around that nuclear power plant that could impact not just ukraine but all of europe? >> first of all, this is the absolutely what we expected from russia. the putin, putin has provided the nuclear terrorism. and this is the language of putin. this is the language of the nuclear black mail. we just, the only possibility to help us to speak with putin is the language of strength. i was among the first who appeared in the chernobyl

nuclear power station immediately, hours after the russians fleed from chernobyl, and we are meeting with the heroic crew that w.h.o., who stayed there under russian occupation, and now actually the same situation now, in zaporizhzhia, and i just want to remind you that this is ten times more powerful than chernobyl station. and this is not dangerous only for europe, for ukraine, only for part of russia, but this is dangerous for the whole world, and that's why ukrainian soldiers now try to do their best to minimize this risk. and i want to say that this is extremely impressive. the heroic steps of the delegation of iaea, which,

despite the russian shelling, despite the immediate danger for of their life, continue to do their works. and i want to direct attention of the united nations, and definitely the issue that we have with this question, that they should have the question in the agenda, the general assembly of the united nations, and i'm not sure of a possibility on the international peacekeepers, based on their security council, of the united nations decision, who can guarantee a nuclear security of europe and nuclear security of the world. this is one of the possible ways, how we can provide that. >> former president of ukraine, petro poroshenko, thank you very much for being on this morning. >> thanks a lot. all right, let's bring in pentagon correspondent for "the new york times," elaine coop wer new reporting. i would love to hear about your reporting on the kinds of

weaponry that ukrainians are managing to use in this war. >> hi, mika. thanks for having me. ukrainians have been doing an incredible job of, the word that is being bandied around right now and a lot of memes on social media right now, mcgyver, do you remember that show? you totally show your age, right? getting a lot of ups here, too. but they've managed, because you got to look at a little bit of the history of ukraine. ukraine historically was the center, the heart of the soviet union's defense industry. so you have within the ukraine population just this endemic technological knowledge when it comes to defense manufacturing. they're very comfortable with defense, with weaponry, with military weaponry, and they've

been managing to, you know, re-rig, sort of jerry rig sort of weapons that nobody expected thept to use in this war. for instance, there are these arms that america has been providing ukraine with these arm anti-radiation missiles, which are normally used to put their aircraft, they're aircraft mounted and normally used on american planes, well ukraine has basically nine fighter jets which are soviet planes and you can imagine that the united states does not make this for soviet fighter jets, but somehow, ukraine has managed to mount these missiles on to their soviet era, their mig-29 fighters, they have tinkered around with the radar and targeting systems, and are, these systems are now, these american missiles are now in the air, targeting soviet positions.

which is nobody really targeted, sorry, russian positions. nobody expected them to be able to do that. it was an interesting kind of weird pentagon press conference a week ago, when the pentagon sort of, you know, they got a question about, are these, in the video, are that these are on the mig 29, and the pentagon official was very much they appear to have successfully done that. this has never been done by an air force before. and there are many other instances of this, where ukrainian military officials, ukrainian military technical officials have managed to mount systems on trucks that hadn't been expected. for instance, the missiles that took down the russian ship in the black sea fleet back in

april, the missiles were home-grown ukrainian made missiles that had never been out on the market before. >> yes, so for kids watching, this don't understand the mcgyver reference, he would usually take a paper clip, a can of chunky's camp bell soup, campbell's chunky soup, and a missile, and win a war. so that's what we're talking about. we're talking about mcgyver. and let's be very, very clear here. we're talking about mcgyver and not mcgroover. not mcgroover. >> exactly. >> a classic. so as we move from pop cultural references to war, again, back to war again, what can you tell us about the southern offensive? what are you hearing inside the pentagon about the success of you krangians in pushing south and the final counter-offensive

before winter sets in? >> so we are not hearing as much, which says something in and of itself. because the united states is very quick to, when ukraine is successful, we talk about it. we haven't said as much so far. but that doesn't mean ukraine hasn't been successful. it just means that this is slow getting off the mark. you just heard president poroshenko talk about they're still just doing artillery shelling, at the moment they haven't really started the major parts of the offensive. the pentagon is still using the phrase shaping operations. which is sort of, you know, military speak for, you know, they're trying to get the battlefield in order. over the last couple of months, ukraine has blown up a bunch of bridges. they've penned in some of the russian troops who are around kherson, in preparation for ice lating them as part of this, isolating them as part of this offensive. and ukrainians say they have

broken through a few russian lines and have taken back in a few places but we haven't seen anything wholesale yet, but nobody is expecting it was going to happen in two or three days. this is going to take weeks or months or even longer. >> pentagon correspondent for "the new york times," helene cooper, thank you very much for being on this morning. it is 3 minutes past the top of the hour. we turn back now to the major developments in the legal fight over the classified documents seized from mar-a-lago, and new missteps from trump and his legal team. today, a judge is expected to make a decision on whether to grant donald trump's request for a certainly master. overnight, trump's legal team responded to the department of justice's latest filing on the classified documents seized during the fbi search of mafrlg. in the 18-page filing trump's lawyers suggested by launching

what they described as an unprecedented, unnecessary, and legally unsupported raid on mar-a-lago, the justice department was quote criminalizing a former president's possessions of personal and presidential records in a secure setting. it comes as the d.o.j. said it had evidence efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government's investigation. with government records likely concealed and removed in the months before the august 8th search. in last night's response, trump's lawyers argued the presidential records act has no enforcement mechanism. suggesting that the government had no basis to seize the files, that trump took to mar-a-lago, and did not return, even after repeated requests by the national archives and the subpoena from the justice department, trump's attorneys

also argued, privacy in response to the d.o.j., adding, quote, it is a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's home that triggers the obvious standing of the homeowner to contest search on those premises. >> not if you have government top secret documents. >> let's bring this criminal defense attorney, based in miami, john, a former watergate prosecutor and state attorney for palm beach county, florida. aaron and also jonathan lemire is with us as well. >> thank you very much for being with us again. we greatly appreciate it. let me begin with you, with this pleading with trump's lawyers talking about quote a reasonable expectation of privacy in and around the home. does that hold any water whatsoever when top secret documents are involved in the search? >> no, of course not. here a magistrate judge found probable cause that there is

evidence of a crime. and in the second order, the magistrate judge said i thought then and i re-examined it and i think again now that there is probable cause. so i disregard that argument. can i take you back quickly to a watergate experience which is important. and high point and low point is saturday night massacre when then president nixon thought he was above the law and the key thing then is more that they fired everybody and fbi agents occupied the offices but the president directed we could not go to court, and then there was such a public outcry that the president had to back down. now, there has never been this divided, since the civil war, and i think presidents are different, and in u.s. versus nixon, the supreme court cited khalif justice marshall, and -- cited chief justice marshall and

said a case involving a president is different than an ordinary citizen. so i think we have to take seriously the request for a special master, which in most cases would not apply. and of course, most cases, if not all took place in the case of a lawyer in a law office, and here, it's a former president. and there is no case law involving a former president because it has never happened to a former president. so i think a special master is something that judge cannon has to entertain, and i believe what chief justice roberts said, there were no obama judges and there are no biden judges, and trump judges, there are just judges. and i think that a district, a district federal judge will apply the laws and the facts and will disregard all of the noise, the political rhetoric and today's hearing, i think a special master is something that might be considered.

>> i take it you have a slightly different opinion about the appointment of a special master and whether it is appropriate and what it means to the case here. and i would let you speak it that and as a state attorney in palm beach county florida, you know the courts and the judges and what do you make of the legal team and how they proceeded here and where are they going with some of these arguments that seem to be all over the place. >> good morning. good to be on with you. and my friend john, an amazing lawyer and even better person, but i disagree with him on this one. first off, there is a reason why the trump legal team traveled 68 miles to the north of here to find the one judge permanently assigned to the fort pierce courthouse, because it is a trump-appointed judge, someone who was confirmed a week after trump lost the election, and they think that she will rule their way, and maybe she will. we'll see later today. but as part of the special master motion, the issue is moot. and as jill likes to says horse is already out of the barn so no

reason to duplicate the d.o.j.'s effort. they already reviewed the documents. they already had a filter team separate the documents subject to attorney-client privilege and no documents related to executive privilege and for those who say what is the harm in having a special master do it again, the marm is delaying the investigation, and even more importantly, delaying the important intelligence review of the damage caused by storing these very sensitive documents in an unsecured social club in palm beach. and if you said, well, at least this will give some confidence to the maga universe that things are being done properly, nothing is going to satisfy trump's core supporters, they will find corruption in any investigation of their leader. i mean just ask bob mueller who had unimpeachable credentials and was accused of being corrupt because of country club dues. and the only way the maga universe will be happy with a special master, if it is rudy

giuliani or the my pillow guy and neither of them have the appropriate national security clearance. >> john sale though, when, and this has nothing to do with this particular investigation, it has nothing to with the department of justice or the fbi, but i'm sure after hearing what dave said, you would agree with every criminal defense attorney, that would say just because the government is saying trust us, we already looked at the papers, nobody else looks at the papers, everything is in line, you would still want somebody going in there, looking at what every document, at whatever document they could look at for your client, right? >> of course, everything is a balance. what's the harm? the delay is not, it's better to get it right rather than follow a political timetable and the government has a lot of other

things it could continue doing. let me say, no special master or judge is going to order a return of these documents to former president trump. but it's really a privilege issue. and i think that the public will have more confidence in the system if there's an independent review. you know, the notion of threats of riots in the streets, unfortunately, that's reprehensible, but it's probably right. and i think we have to do everything to bring down the temperature, and i hope that an independent special master would do a little bit to bring around cooling down temperatures. but ultimately when the attorney general makes a decision, it's not going to be influenced by threats of more violence. >> former president donald trump boasted about the evidence, including the justice department's filing, trump claimed on his social media site, the documents why quote

sloppily thrown on the floor. and that agents quote took them out of cartons and spread hem around on the carpet. that goes against his previous arguments that the documents may have been planted. that they were professional stored under lock and tree. and it contradicts the sworn letter that everything had been returned to the government. and in another attempt to defend the tidiness of the mar-a-lago office, one of donald trump's attorneys made a surprising admission last night. >> did the fbi do that? or was that the way that room looked before they went in there? do you have any first-hand knowledge. >> i'm sure you've seen the press today. i do have first-hand knowledge as you know. i've been down there, down there frequently, i have never seen that, i have never, ever seen. that that is not how his office looks. anybody who knows president trump's office, he has guests frequently there, it is just a joke, they literally must have

gone in and taken out documents they wanted or cover letters as it is, and put it about so the public believes that this is top secret documents that were on his floor, it's ridiculous. i can tell you personal personally, it's ridiculous. i've never seen that. >> admitting the former president had guests frequently in an office where agents found highly classified documents inside his desk. the comments on fox news came just hours after we learned that haba gave a sworn affidavit, days before the justice department issued the subpoena for the mar-a-lago search. back in may, habba said she personally searched the florida estate for records in response to the new york attorney general's investigation of the trump organization. she said her search was diligent. and that it included all of the desks, drawers, night stands, dressers, closets, et cetera.

>> so she's been through the documents. she's been through the documents. >> it appears she was. >> of course she has absolutely no clearance to go through those documents. she just made the government's case for them. unbelievable, mika. >> onthan? >> it sure seems that way. and not only is she saying, she is the attorney associated with the case in new york and so would no not have security clearance in that way, but not only is she in that room and going through the former president's stuff, and there were other people in the room, too, and that is the real issue. and the former president simply has these documents to begin with, that is enough to bring a criminal charge by law. but there is the added security risk, the idea that other people may have access to these documents, club members, we know mar-a-lago is beyond where the president lives, it is a club where it entertains people, for the price of membership, just about anybody can get in there,

including some pretty unsavory characters. so the president has seemed not to surround himself with the bright and brightest when it comes to the legal team and seem to be getting more in trouble up through the day. walk us through how this could impact the legal case and which of the former's president's attorneys maybe all of them may be in legal hot water themselves. >> this is why the former president needed a guy like john sale, because he is an experienced criminal defense lawyer and make admissions that come back to haunt you and the case is getting easier for the government every day, they keep talking. and christina bobb and haba both signed declarations that have all bun returned and puts them in hot water and makes them potential witnesses and defendants in the obstruction case. and with a meting that says maga, it stands for making attorneys get attorneys because they need to hire defense counsel for themselves.

and that viral photo that went out is really important. because that photo slows that no one could, shows that no one could mistake these bright yellow and red color sheets for anything but classified documents. you can't say we didn't know they were there. some are screaming out classified. >> and those were intermingled with the classified documents. that's important. because it shows that trump's personal items, including his passports, remember, were all included in part of these documents, and that further ties him directly to the alleged crime. so it is getting harder and harder for donald trump to lay this one on his lawyers or the coffee boy. >> state attorney for be palm beach county, florida, david ehrenberg, and defense attorney john sale, thank you very much. and president joe biden will address the nation from philadelphia tonight on what he calls quote the continued battle

for the soul of the nation. it comes more than three years after the then candidate biden launched his presidential campaign in that same city, focusing on a similar theme. >> america has always been at its best when america is acting as one american. one american. one america may be a simple notion, but it doesn't make it any less profound. this nation needs to come together. it has to come together. folks, we started this campaign, when we did, i said i was running for three reasons, the first is to restore the soul of the nation. yes. >> joining us now from philadelphia is nbc news white house correspondent mike, you can give us a sense or a preview of what the president plans to say tonight about that battle for the soul of america? >> well, mik, as you know, i've covered the president for quite

a long time and he often talked about hubert humphrey as a political mentor, the happy warrior, and the midterms are less than ten weeks away, could run a happy warrior campaign on behalf of democrats and the recent run of legislative successes and the inflation reduction act and the bipartisan infrastructure among others, but this is a country as we see in the new quinnipiac poll, that sees more than two-thirds of the country in fact agreeing with the concern that this president has laid out for some time that, the very democracy in this country is at stake. so he will come here tonight with this historic backdrop of independence hall and talk about that continued battle or the soul of the nation. the idea that as we see what he calls the extreme maga wing of the party, now the dominant wing of the republican party, if there were to be governors like doug mastriano who is running here in pennsylvania, if there were to be more senators, and even we saw him refer to, if not by name lindsey graham, talking about the idea of blood in the

streets, riots in the streets if this prosecution of president trump were to go forward. that represents a real threat to our democracy. and it really, you can draw a through line from between the message that the president will bring tonight with the meeting the president had privately a month ago with a group of presidential historians including friend john meachum, we are at the inflection point that the president has talked about so often. and the president has said he tried to work with republicans where he can, but he is looking reality in his view the democratic party will probably have to go alone and he wants the democratic governors to be really the ones reinforcing the norms and the institutions of this country, at a time when republicans he sees as a very threat to those same institutions. >> thank you very much.

quilly? we've been talking about this new wall street poll and president biden tonight feels like he has a little bit more wind at his back than he has at recent months. the gnaw poll shows 47% of registered voters say if the election were held today they would vote for the democratic candidate for congress. 44% republican. that is a swing from march, where republicans will a five-poit lead over democrats in this poll. a big part of that shift coming from independent voters who now favor the democratic candidates by 3%. that may not sound like a lot, but back in march, the lead was 12% for republicans. so a 15-point swing there. when asked about a potential rematch, between donald trump and joe biden, in 2024, voters say they prefer the current president biden, 50% to 44%. in march, the two were tied. so joe, let you pick through the numbers a little bit. the independent number jumps out

certainly. the republicans have a margin on the economy, and latino voters have come back more toward democrats and you look at the trends and the president's overall approval rating which in this poll anyway is at 45%. >> i mean you always look at the trend lines in campaigns. the trepid lines certainly going the democrats' way. if you look, usually traditionally, at the generic ballot cast, if the tie, the tie always goes to the runner. and these generic ballot tests, the tie usually goes to the republican party, they usually outperform how the generic ballot test is. so this is a wrong, and the right direction, for democratic candidates, but they will want to keep the trim lines going, if they want to actually make gains this fall. which would be historic. let's bring in right now, a member of "the new york times" editorial board, thanks so much for being with us. i want to read a line to "the wall street journal" story that,

as i say, the democratic gains come from increased support among democrats, women, and younger voters. black and hispanic spoeters who have traditionally favored democrats more heavily are more spo solidly supportive of the party than they were earlier this year. obviously earlier this year, when you had support among younger voters, way down, and the democrats panicking about the loss of hispanic voters and people of color, generally, you know that joe biden and the democratic party was in trouble, and that obviously has changed dramatically over the past couple of months. we've talked an awful lot about roe being reversed. what are some of the things that you see that have caused, and i'll say it again the increased support among women and independent voters and pim of color. >> a couple of trend behinds at the same time. and think about what the last

few months have brought. on the one hand this extraordinary story has unfolded with the january 6th committee which was not expected to be so gripping in the way that it was. and it turned out to be. so we have this story of not just the former president, donald trump, and what he brought, you know, that caused that horrible riot on january 6th, 2021 but the people and the republicans around him who enabled that. so you have this extraordinary display for the american people. and i think that did change hearts and minds and then just opened a question about whether the american people really trust republicans, at this moment in time, to be in control or command of our democracy. and then of course, separate from that, you have a summer in which inflation was really painful for americans, but once that bubble started to burst, and things kind of started to improve, you had kind of the wind taken out of the republican

sails, and then of course, undergird thrag is this environment in which abortion rights and women's rights in general are clearly under attack throughout the united states. so all of that combined has clearly given the democrats an opportunity to make unground here, and they're in a much better position now than they were a few months ago. >> and jonathan, jonathan lemire, it has been one story after another story, after another story, that republicans have just acted horribly, reacted horribly to politics, let's just talk politics, we will let people make their moral judgments joufr they will but you look at the polling and look at other numbers and look at other data points, january 6th, the hearings, which republicans refused to participate in, and in an active way, refused to have a bipartisan, bicameral commission, it allowed democrats and liz cheney and adam

kinzinger to framd that the way they wanted to frame it, without any pushback from republicans. and 20 million people saw the first hearing. i think a lot of us thought, i thought it would be much ado about nothing. nobody would listen. 20 million people listened that first night. and they got good ratings. blockbuster testimony from cassidy hutchinson. it really did frame the first half of this summer and they were all trump-ists testifying against donald trump. and then republicans, you have the tragedy of uvalde, you have a few republicans, ten republicans in the senate stepping forward, and helping on gun reform, but overall, the pledge from, message from republican candidates is turn away from uvalde. this has to happen. kids have to happen. they have to be slaughtered down by maniacs if we want to defend

the second amendment. that is a sick argument. and obviously a lot of americans don't believe that 18-year-olds with psychiatric problems should be able to purchase weapons of war and they don't want to change that law and they're against 90% of what hearns want with universal background checks and take away a 50-year right of privacy from every woman in america. that is obviously having a huge impact. the extremism of republican legs layers, stories of 10-year-old girls chased out of ohio who were raped because they can't have decisions being made by their parents, and preacher and their mental health counselors and doctors. they will have forced pregnancies. i will say it again. forgive me, i have to say it again because it so radical and explain at republicans' problem. in michigan, you have the republican who won the

republican nomination for governor and said that a 14-year-old girl being raped by her uncle is a perfect reason why that girl should have no decision over what she does, and that the government should come in and have a forced birth of the rapist's baby and the parents have no say. the preacher has no input. the health care provider has no input. the girl lass no input. this is so radical, and now, of course, we have mar-a-lago, and donald trump, lying, obstructing justice, it certainly appears, on top secret documents. that is a lot for a political party to digest over three months. and the republican party, maybe they're digesting it, but independents, swing voters, they're not. >> you're right, joe. there's a long list, you just ticked through it, on issues where the republican party seems out of step with the rest of the

country and the white house and the democrats are trying to make that case, and really paint the gop ased party of extremes. and i will add how so many republican candidate because they're trying to please donald trump are spending nerj trying to undo and contest the 2020 election. that's not what americans want to hear about. for americans that election is done and settled. they don't want that. and that's why republicans are very worried about how things are going to look this november. and i'll add, january 6th committee, that can't be overstated, the success there surprised even those members which is why they're coming up with two, three, or four more hearings perhaps this fall. pretty lofty stuff tonight about the idea that we have to defend democracy, how we're perceived overseas and how the g-7 welcomed the americans back. but for how long? world leaders expressed that worry. but there are concrete certains at home. you mentioned yesterday, gas

prices scares them. if they tick back up again this fall, that could undo all of the good they think they've accomplished. how does biden tonight mix the lofty and the concrete? >> first of all, he's right that there is a battle for the soul of the nation. so putting the politics a aside for one moment, think that will resonate with americans, the 20 million who saw the january 6th committee hearing, but also moving it to the politics on it, joe biden is going to try and offer a contrast for americans today, i believe. as we're hearing about, you know, from the former president, every day, what he was doing with these documents, at mar-a-lago, obstructing justice, potentially, he's going to contrast that and offer americans a vision and remind them why they elected him in the first place. you don't want that drama. you want to know at the end of the day, the nuclear code and the country and the white house is in safe hands. he will offer i believe a very soothing vision and try to bring

down the temperature little bit and say i'm adult in the room, i'm wise, i'm here for you and serving you and then he can lay out what he plans to do from the white house to address the every day issues like gas prices, like inflation, and that have been plaguing americans, you know, kids are going back to school, we want to hear a little bit of an update about the covid pandemic. all of that. this is a real opportunity for joe biden to remind americans that they don't want to go back to the turmoil of the trump years. >>. mika, in "the wall street journal" poll, we talked about the swing vote of white suburban women, milwaukee, detroit, pittsburgh, and in this poll democrats have opened up a 12-point lead among republicans among white suburban voter and one of the guys who conducted the poll said the abortion was queet a defib rater for

democrats. they were dead coming into the midterms and this has energized not just democrats but clearly independents in a way that republicans may not have anticipated. >> don't take away rights we've had for 50 years. don't do that. because you will see, it you will see it in the polls, you'll see it in the voting booth. up next, the growing trend of republican nominees in key races across the country, scrubbing their campaign websites of extreme hard right positions that they showcased during the primary race. plus, new gun restrictions are set to go into place today in new york state. mayor eric adams will join us on why he says the measures will make new york city safer. "morning joe" will be right back. trelegy for copd. ♪ birds flyin' high ♪ ♪ you know how i feel ♪ (coughing) ♪ breeze driftin' on by ♪

♪ you know how i feel ♪ copd may have gotten you here, but you decide what's next. start a new day with trelegy. ♪ ...feelin' good ♪ no once-daily copd medicine has the power to treat copd in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy helps people breathe easier and improves lung function. it also helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy. and save at trelegy.com.

moderate to severe eczema still disrupts my skin. despite treatment it disrupts my skin with itch. 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.

lily! welcome to our third bark-ery. 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.

had there not been a decision by the supreme court, we would not have this discussion but the gun violence crisis lass claimed the lives of too many americans, too many new yorkers and the supreme court has decided at a time when people are still mourning, they decided to take away the rights of a governor to protect her citizens from gun violence. by striking down a 100-year law. 100-year-old law that limits who can carry concealed weapons. so at a time we're having a national reckoning on gun safety, what we can do to protect our decisions, that decision wasn't just flejt, it was reprehensible. reprehensible. >> that is new york governor kathy hochul speaking yesterday, nurk has passed new stricter gun measures in response to the supreme court striking down a law that had limited carrying handguns in public. the new regulation set to go in effect today required applicants

for concealed carry permits to undergo a 16 hour classroom training course and an additional two hours of live fire drills. permit seeks must disclose their social media accounts for the past three years to prove they are of quote good moral character. those convicted of serious misdemeanors like drunk driving, menacing assault, will not be allowed to get permits. applications for gun permits in new york jumped 54% ahead of the new rules going into effect. joining us to discuss it is the new york city mayor eric adams. thank you very much for your time this morning. so explain this a little bit for our viewers and new yorkers watching how you decided where new yorkers can and cannot carry concealed weapons. >> i've been looking at a new definition, that had been introduced into our lives, and that is restricted areas and sensitive locations. times square is considered a sensitive location. as you know, in the ruling, they

indicated we could not carve out all of manhattan, so we looked at those areas, where you have a high volume of people for sensitive locations. on any given day, you can have 475,000 tourists, and new yorkers in that area. so we wanted to make sure we stayed within the lines of the ruling, but at the same time, protected those areas where we knew we had a high volume, or high capacity, or sensitive areas in our city. restricted locations are those private businesses that don't want firearms inside their businesses for the most part. and they could have signs, or it is a national default if there is not a sign welcoming to you bring in a gun in, that you're not allowed to bring it in. >> we know that some of these mass shootings we've seen, we've gone back and almost always, there is something on social media that perhaps would have tipped people off, but in the case of going through three years worth of social media

accounts before granting a permit, who will decide the quote good moral character of the person? what's the line that person has to cross to be denied a permit? >> that's a great question. because we want to make sure that again, we stay within the boundaries of the ruling, and it is really almost kind of a common sense basically analysis. if someone is spewing hate, if someone is making dangerous threats. if someone is part of some form of hate group, the police officer, or the detective, or the investigator is going to use their investigatory skills of determining if there is something that is a red flag there. and it is really about using the good old-fashioned methods of doing the investigation. when i became a police officer, people knocked on my neighbor's doors and interviewed them and asked what type of person am i, and i think those are the same skills that is going to be used to look at not only social media, but also knocking on

neighbor's doors, speaking to people, finding out who this individual is, and that we're about to allow to carry a firearm, in our city. >> mayor adams, good morning. it is jonathan lemire. >> good morning. >> you're hoping the measure will reduce where firearms can be brought across new york city, but there are some pressures on the other end, increasing tensions about the number of preserve lens of guns and the numbers of shootings, shootings have gone up across the country in the last year or two and new york city has had that sort of spike and the supreme court case which will allow easier for people to carry weapons, in states across the country, including new york, so just right now, how concerned, even with this new measure putting into place, how concerned are you about the prevalence of firearms and gun violence in the nation's largest city. >> extremely concerned. i stated at the time when this was being deliberated, that, you know, it kept me up at night. and i know what it is to have guns in the hands of not only dangerous people, illegal guns but innocent people, and we saw

what happened in florida, when we had a young man shot, because he was basically wearing a hoodie. having a gun is not a way to keep a city safe. now, we witnessed some success here, with the 10% decrease in shootings, 10% decrease in homicides, but there's so much more we can do in our country, to stop the over-proliferation and fixation on guns in our cities. and this is an issue that is going to impact cities in a real way. >> nice to see you. >> how you are doing? >> great, thanks. what does this mean for the more than 30,000 police officers on the streets today? are their jobs more dangerous? and also, beyond that, does this change the way that they plan on policing here in new york, as they look for guns, and of course, are they going to be deployed to more sensitive locations like around schools, to make sure that there are no

guns there that shouldn't be? >> great question. cosmic shift. a cosmic shift. because now, you are in an environment where anyone can have a gun for the most part. any citizen can have a gun, and now you have to deal with the citizens carrying guns, and the bad guys carrying guns, and having bad guys next to someone who legally can carry a gun as well. you are going to see a different way of people allowing individuals to carry guns for them. sort of what you see with the store purchases that are taking place now in the southern parts of our country. so this is a game changer for public safety, particularly in the densely populated area like new york city, but we still have to police in that environment, we have to pivot and shirt to adjust to it and we're not going to take police officers from those areas where we need police protection, because of violence

upticks but at the same time it is going to really stretch out our law enforcement capabilities. >> mr. mayor, when we talk about the bigger picture of crime in new york city, you and i have spoken about this, we've had people on, talking about this bail reform question, and i certainly don't have to tell you the frustration police officers are feeling about seeing the same criminals on the streets day after day, week after week, arresting them, letting them be recognized on their own recognizance and being back out on the street. how do you change that perception among people that might commit crime and i can walk in and put stuff in a bag and walk out and nothing will happen to me. or i can wrestle an officer at a subway station. i think i can probably get away with that, too. how do you thank that? and is there any movement to perhaps reform the bail reform that went into effect a couple of years ago? >> i said it over and over again, there are many rivers that feed the sea of violence, not only gun violence, but violence and disorder, and one

of the rivers we must dam is our criminal justice system, and the various components of it. including, i think we need to tweak, not take away those criminal justice reforms, and i fought for it, as a state senator and as a police officer. we need to look at the, really the bottle-necking of our court system. and our judges must do a better job of using the powers that they have, and i think our prosecutors can look at some of the cases that should be prosecuted that we are taking far too long to get cases through the criminal justice system. and then as a job, we must do as police officers, we, as a police department, as i analyze, we're looking in the mirror and sighing what can we do better as well. all of these rivers must be dammed but there are far too many people in new york and in cities across america that believe the criminal justice system is not assuring to

inflict violence on citizens and we have work to do based on our criminal justice system. >> new york city mayor eric adams, thanks for your time this morning. we appreciate it. >> thank you, take care. still ahead here, nearly 180,000 people in jackson, mississippi, have been without drinkable water for days and no indication the problem will be fixed soon. we will speak live with the mayor of jackson just ahead on "morning joe." age is just a number. and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health. versus 16 grams in ensure high protein. boost® high protein also has key nutrients for immune support. boost® high protein.

my husband and i have never been more active. boost® high protein also shingles doesn't care. i go to spin classes with my coworkers. good for you, shingles doesn't care. because no matter how healthy you feel, your risk of shingles sharply increases after age 50. but shingrix protects. proven over 90% effective, shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today. ♪♪ it's time for the biggest sale of the year, on the sleep

number 360® smart bed. it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. our smart sleepers get 28 minutes more restful sleep per night. don't miss our labor day weekend special. save 50% on sleep number 360® limited edition smart bed. ends labor day. okay season 6! aw... this'll take forev—or not. do i just focus on when things don't work, and not appreciate when they do? i love it when work actually works! i just booked this parking spot... this desk... and this conference room! i am filing status reports on an app that i made! i'm not even a coder! and it works!... i like your bag! when your digital solutions work, the world works. that's why the world works with servicenow.

(vo) you can be well-dressed. you can be well-mannered. (man) oh, no, no, after you. wahoooo! (vo) you can be well-groomed. or even well-spoken. (man) ooooooo. (vo) but there's just something about being well-adventured. (vo) adventure has a new look. discover more in the all-new subaru forester wilderness. love. it's what makes subaru, subaru. it's the all-new subway series menu! 12 irresistible new subs... like #11 subway club. piled with turkey, ham and roast beef. this sub isn't slowing down time any time soon. i'll give it a run for its money. my money's on the sub. it's subway's biggest refresh yet. millions have made the switch from the big three to the best kept secret in wireless: xfinity mobile. that means millions are saving hundreds a year with the fastest mobile service. and now, introducing the best price for two lines of unlimited. just $30 per line.

there are millions of happy campers out there. and this is the perfect time to join them... with the best mobile price for two lines of unlimited. take the xfinity mobile savings challenge and see how much you can save. switch to xfinity mobile today. 49 past the hour. the republican nominee for pennsylvania senate race, dr.

mehmet oz, can be heard in newly-obtained aud yes from an vent earlier this year, saying he believes abortion is quote still murder. at any point after conception. the event took place in may. just before the primary, when oz answered a question about how he could reconcile his recent anti-abortion beliefs with previous comments he made, such as in 2019, when he said he was worried about how women's health would be affected if roe v. wade were overturned. take a listen. >> joining us now, political reporter for axios, alexy, you're taking a look at how a growing number of republican nom niece, maybe not mehmet oz, are trying to hide or dilute the more extreme stances on big issues like abortion.

issues they had proudly showcased and positions on those issues. they proudly showcased during the primary races. >> that's right, mika. thank you for having me this morning. this is really a trend we're seeing happening across the country and in critical battleground states like pennsylvania, like michigan, minnesota, colorado, oregon, north carolina, nevada, washington state. the list goes on, and it's gubernatorial candidates, senate candidates, candidates for u.s. house, and it's -- we see folks take these hardline positions in primaries and then try to moderate when they win the primary and move into the general. that, of course, is something that is standard in elections. what we're see thing time around is next level mental and rhetorical gymnastics. these folks have had these hardline positions on things like abortion, saying they have no exceptions for anything. they're very pro life. and when they have won their primary, their websites have been scrubbed, they've either

been changed completely or language that's more harsh and serious has been removed. other folks have removed instances of election denial or conspiracies about 2020. others have removed instances of endorsements from donald trump, and then put them back on their page after they were called out. so we're see thing dynamic where it seems like republican candidates and nominees are watching these trends and contours of the cycle changing against their direction and position and really trying to work with that in whatever way they can. >> yeah. kind of hard, though, to kind of sugarcoat or issues that are fairly stark. how do handle this? >> democrats in these battle ground state where is this is happening are running adds on abortion. we have seen democrats in special elections like last week in new york with patriaian, he sentered his campaign on this issue of abortion.

similar with the special election in alaska last night. so democrats are cutting adds, they are putting up billboards in michigan to expos republicans who have changed their position on things like abortion. so they're really trying to hold them accountable. of course, we have joe biden giving a speech like he's expected to tonight, which is really trying to further that contrast between the two parties and kind of highlight what the republican party and some of these folks are standing for in contrast to what democrats and really polls show the country want. >> alexy, thanks for coming on. do you have any sense for what sparked this initially? was this the kansas vote and the panic over the republican extreme views on abortion? and also, do we know at all how voters are responding to this, including primary voters who showed up for these candidates and helped them get these nominations? >> well, look, i think it's clear based on how the

republicans are acting they don't plan to talk about this issue much on the trail. so i think they're hoping that voters won't really pick up on it or necessarily ask them about it, though we know that won't be true. but we also know, as you mentioned, what happened in kansas represented a change in this election for both parties. before that, republicans were publicly and privately doubting whether or not the dobbs decision would have any positive effect for democrats this november. kansas changed that, but kansas wasn't in a new vacuum. there's new data at voter registration where we are seeing more and more women register to vote after that decision. we're seeing organizing and fund raising skyrocket after what happened in kansas. we're also seeing special election where is democrats are winning, where they weren't expected to at all because of this issue of abortion. then the last thing i would say, and i've done reporting on this in the past, republicans are really all over the map when it

comes to their position on abortion. whether that's here in washington or out on the campaign trail. there are groups like the susan b. anthony pro life group which has been encouraging republicans to take one common stance on abortion so they're not held liable for these extreme views. and it's difficult to get on the same page. this is an attempt for them to all water down their language to get a little closer to some sense of unity on this issue. >> political reporter for axios, alexy, thank you very much for being on the show this morning. and a member of "the new york times" editorial board, mara gay, thank you, as well. coming up, we'll get an update on the situation in ukraine. senators rob portman and amy klobuchar will join us after their bipartisan trip to the country. and a live report from florida, as a judge will decide today whether or not to appoint a

special master to go through the documents found in the search of mar-a-lago. plus, a member of the select committee investigating the january 6th riots, democratic congressman adam schiff will be our guest. we'll get his thoughts on what fbi agents found at the former president's home. we'll be right back. joe biden and democrats in congress just passed the inflation reduction act to lower our costs. the plan lowers the cost of healthcare and medicine and lowers our energy bills by investing in clean energy. that's more savings for us. if you have advanced non-small cell lung cancer, your first treatment could be a chemo-free combination of two immunotherapies that works differently. it could mean a chance to live longer. opdivo plus yervoy is for adults newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer that has spread,

tests positive for pd-l1, and does not have an abnormal egfr or alk gene. together, opdivo plus yervoy helps your immune system launch a response that fights cancer in two different ways. opdivo plus yervoy equals a chance for more time together. more family time. more time to remember. opdivo and yervoy can cause your immune system to harm healthy parts of your body during and after treatment. these problems can be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have a cough; chest pain; shortness of breath; irregular heartbeat; diarrhea; constipation; severe stomach pain, nausea or vomiting; dizziness; fainting; eye problems; extreme tiredness; changes in appetite, thirst or urine; rash; itching; confusion; memory problems; muscle pain or weakness; joint pain; flushing; or fever. these are not all the possible side effects. problems can occur together and more often when opdivo is used with yervoy. tell your doctor about all medical conditions including immune or nervous system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant, or received chest radiation. here's to a chance to live longer. ask your doctor about the combination of two immunotherapies, opdivo plus yervoy. thank you to all those in our clinical trials.

♪♪ subway's drafting 12 new subs for the all-new subway series menu the new monster has juicy steak and crispy bacon. but what about the new boss? it looks so good it makes me hangry! settle down there, big guy the new subway series. what's your pick?

they say themselves in these papers that they filed that this is under the presidential records act. so what they did was to try and criminalize donald trump, as they always do. they found these three mundane statutes, espionage and the two others, obstruction, and they're trying to claim that there was some sort of criminal activity. >> mundane statute?

new spin from one of donald trump's attorneys, as the former president and his legal team struggle to get their stories straight when it comes to the top secret documents seized from mar-a-lago. welcome back to "morning joe." it's thursday, september 1st. jonathan is still with us. in just a few hours, a federal judge will rule on whether to appoint an independent party to review classified documents seized at former president trump's mar-a-lago home. nbc's hallie jackson has more. >> reporter: a defiant response from the trump team, arguing it should have been fully anticipated that the president would have had sensitive materials at his home, describing them as his own presidential records. even though the law says they belong to the government. suggesting the national archives should have simply followed up in a good-faith effort to get those classified records back. >> the trump reply basically

says why didn't these parties just keep negotiating over these documents? doj's whole point is, they tried that, it didn't work. they tried a subpoena. it didn't work. they had to go to a search warrant. >> reporter: mr. trump's team arguing without a so-called special master to review the classified documents found at mar-a-lago, unchecked justice department investigators could selectively leak and publicize aspects of their investigation. the trump team also says this photo, showing classified material, was gratuitously included in the doj's filing earlier this week, and say the documents were spread across the floor for dramatic effect. they call the description of a june 3rd meeting, where investigators visited mar-a-lago in person, significantly mischaracterized. the justice department says that's when mr. trump's attorneys swore they had done a diligent search for any classified material. although fbi agents found dozens of documents at mar-a-lago, including several in the former president's personal office. is that is is not the way his office looks.

anybody that knows president trump's office, he has guests frequently there. >> reporter: that would undercut the argument that the material was held in a "secure setting." from republicans, mostly silence. >> i don't have any observations about that. >> reporter: mr. trump has posted dozens of messages and conspiracy theorys on his social media platform. in his most explicit support yet of qanon, whose followers claim satanic, cannibal pedophiles run the government. mr. trump implying they're the enemy and demand that he be reinstated as president or a new election should be held immediately. >> donald trump is trying to keep his base engaged and trying to use them as leverage against merrick garland and joe biden. >> that's nbc's hallie jackson with that report. of course, the problem is that as he tries to engage his ever

smaller base, his ever more intense base talking about civil war, we've seen "the wall street journal" pull out this morning. he's turning off a lot of suburban voters and a lot of higher educated voters, a lot of independents, a lot of women especially in the suburbs. and you actually see for the first time a head-to-head matchup where joe biden is now up six points over donald trump if the election were held today, which of course i know it's meaningless in so many ways. but it's not inside the republican party, as republicans try to figure out how to separate themselves from donald trump. because they understand he's costing them so much in 2022, they don't want a repeat of 2024. and there's that head-to-head matchup. willie, the only other thing i want to bring up out of hallie's package is the fact that if there were anybody -- if there were a grownup in charge in

trump's operation, they would say to him, mr. president, you've got to stop sending your lawyers on television shows. i know you want to fight this politically, but you're damaging yourself legally. and that's -- he's in the lem fight of his life right now, and he keeps sending lawyers out who keep undermining all of his arguments. and actually making arguments for the government, when you have a lawyer not even associated with this case saying she rifled through all of these top secret documents. it's -- yeah, it's crazy how much they're damaging their own political and legal standing. >> and he's doing the same with each of his latest posts that he puts up on social media, changing excuses and explanations of what happened. but you're right, the one attorney that's been out the last couple of days is not working on this case, she's

working on a case for donald trump in new york. but her defense, as we just heard a minute ago there, is that the fbi took these documents out of donald trump's cartons or wherever he said he had them, and just chucked them out on the floor and made it look like he left it on the floor. is that really their argument? that's an evidence photo. so they're grasping at straws here as the justice department appears to be presenting more and more information that could lead one expert to assume that an indictment may come. let's talk to reporter at politico, josh gerstein. i know you're down there in florida awaiting this latest hearing. so what did you take away from the filing last night from president trump's lawyers? they don't really get at the questions around obstruction where the justice department may be headed here. >> that's right, willie. they make some sort of technical arguments about what they think

a special master should do. but they don't combat this really sort of staggering scenario that the justice department laid out on tuesday, that when this grand jury subpoena for these records was served, that trump's lawyers basically submitted a false affidavit, saying they had done a diligent search of the area, and had found nothing that was marked classified besides what had already been returned. they don't explain why they said that. they don't advance trump's claims that hes the classified some of these documents. it's not only the public combat here, but the very fact of this special master they're asking for, going to court and litigating this search, this is trump's decision to handle it this way, to have this kind of information come out. so far, all they have accomplished is put a lot more facts on the public record that we didn't already have, and even get a judge in washington to sort of set aside grand jury

secrecy, and say if you're going to cause a court fight, we may as well put more information in the public record. there's a reason people under serious federal criminal investigation, they keep quiet and they try to negotiate behind the scenes. that's obviously not what trump is trying to do here. >> donald trump, incapable of keeping quiet, josh. we know that. so you're right, in that his team's effort to try to get this special master open the door for doj to better frame their narrative. let's return to the idea of a special master, just walk us through what that would mean for the case, what would be the pros and cons, if you will, the benefits and detractions for the trump team if a special master is assigned? >> well, jonathan, a special master would be a retired judge or some other very esteemed attorney. in this case, they would need somebody who already has a top

secret, sci clearance, which is the top level of national security clearance, who it sounds like what they would be doing is checking the fbi's work and making sure that a relatively modest number of potentially attorney/client privileged documents that the fbi set aside in this initial search, that that was done properly. now, there's a broader question here where trump is trying to say that a whole bunch of these records, not just the classified stuff, but unclassified stuff, is covered by executive privilege. that's a little bit of a baffling claim to have raised at this stage of this investigation. and the special master, if the judge allows a special master to get into that issue, i think we're going to have a big, big embrolio. a lot of lawyers say there's no role for executive privilege. if this is confined to a modest number of attorney/client documents, the justice department will say fine, check our work.

it will set us back a few weeks. if this judge, who is a trump appointee, wants to broaden the role to oversee a number of different issues, then i think you'll see doj appeal what we expect to be her decision to appoint a special master in this trump search. >> senior legal affairs reporter at politico josh gerstein, thank you very much. we'll have a lot more on this story coming up. in ukraine, in the past hour, ukraine's state nuclear energy company posted a message on its telegram account, confirming experts from the iaea have arrived at the zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. they will now assess the risk of a radiation disaster, as a live war continues to rage within the surrounding area. the team's arrival was delayed due to shelling in the area, so we'll be monitoring that. let's bring in democratic

senator amy klobuchar of minnesota, and republican senator rob portman of ohio. they are just back from a bipartisan trip to ukraine, where they met with senior ukrainian leaders, including president zelenskyy, as well as the defense minister. joe? >> so great you were all able to go over, a bipartisan trip on obviously an extraordinarily important issue. i wanted to ask you, senator portman, just really quickly, i'm going to ask you one quick question about the documents that we and everybody else have been talking about. senator portman, i'm curious, i know the intel committee, again, in a bipartisan manner, it's important for americans to understand that, have asked the department of justice to come and testify, obviously privately, and tell them the nature of the security risk with these documents at mar-a-lago.

what -- have you all heard -- has the senate had any update from doj? is that going to happen? and what would you like to learn? what do you think is important for you to learn right now without obviously stepping in the way of doj conducting their investigation? >> i think it's really important that the fbi and doj do come up and provide us with a classified briefing. i would say to go beyond the intelligence committee. i'm on the homeland security committee as an example. we have jurisdiction over the national archives. i would hope that we would have the ability to ask questions, get the real answers. it's unprecedented to have a raid like this on a former president's residence, and that's why i think the transparency should be unprecedented also. obviously, we need to be careful that sources and methods are not being revealed through classified documents. they should never be taken from the white house in the first place, but we don't know the details yet.

so yeah, it's important we have that briefing. my understanding is the decision for a briefing has not been made yet. but i would hope we could have that kind of a briefing. >> senator klobuchar, i know you have many concerns, as well. you're an attorney. concern that the documents ever left the white house in the first place. but should the senate intel committee and other committees have classified briefings to know the scope of the damage possibly done to america's national security? >> of course. at the same time, we want to make sure we're allowing the justice department to do their work. that's always a tension, but we team to find a way to balance that. i mean, what i saw from the last two days was absolutely atrocious. we always knew that he had taken these documents home. we knew he had not given them all back. but what i found out this week was that on june 3rd, his lawyers said that's it. we have given you all the

documents. then the obstruction clearly continued to the point where we now learn that of these 13 boxes, there were over 100 classified that he still had, including documents that were in his desk. these documents, joe, were in mar-a-lago, a place where you rent out badminton nets and golf kaurt carts. these are top secret documents that could put people's lives at risk, that are trying to protect the security of our country. >> rob, you know, yesterday the world said goodbye to mikhail gorbachev. it reminded us, we played clips of ronald reagan standing at the wall, telling mr. gorbachev to tear down the wall. talk about how they work together. of course, it brought us back to a time when republicans and democrats also worked together. on foreign policy. that's something that you two are doing, also something again, i just want to point it out to our audience, republicans and

democrats alike, with only one or two exceptions, have been working together to help ukraine push back on russian tyranny. talk about that, if you will, just briefly. and also talk about the trip, what did you and amy learn over there? >> well, first of all, joe, as you know, gorbachev was very close to george h.w. bush. so through that i got to meet him several times. he took a lot of risks in ensuring that the soviet union, you know, could move forward in a way that would be good for the people. that has all changed now. you see what's happening in ukraine as one example of that. we talked earlier about zaporizhzhia, the largest nuclear power plant in europe is currently under attack effectively. you know, the russians came in and assaulted the neighboring region and took over the plant and took the employees there captive.

i still got you, joe? >> yep. >> okay. took the employees captive and then began to intimidate them. we were told they were harassed. there are some reports they were tortured. they were captured inside this nuclear power plant. that alone makes it very unsafe. and then to use it as a human shield, saying they were going to fire on ukrainian positions from this military base, which is now this power plant, making it each riskier. and finally, they have destroyed parts of the infrastructure, including power lines, going into ukraine from this plant, because they would like to divert this energy, 20% of the nuclear energy -- i'm sorry, 20% of the electricity in ukraine is generated by this one plant. they would like to divert it to russia. all these add up to war crimes, which are irresponsible and risking a catastrophe for europe, for russia, by the way, from the fallout. this would be the worst nuclear disaster since chernobyl if we

don't demilitarize the area. so i'm glad the u.n. is there and glad they are going to do a technical review. what they really need to do is get russia to do the right thing, which is to demilitarize this area around the plant, allow the workers to do their job without this kind of pressure, and ensure there is no leakage and that this plant is safe. >> senator klobuchar, as you know, you all in the senate with the president have rallied billions of dollars of aid to ukraine and helped to rally the world behind that effort. as you sat across the table from president zelenskyy, what more did he ask for? and where does he see this going? what is the endgame here? how does this end, hopefully with some kind of a peace deal at the end, or is that unrealistic to think of when vladamir putin is on the other side of the negotiation? >> well, we had an excellent meeting with president zelenskyy, the defense minister, the chief of staff to president zelenskyy. there was a lot of power. and we went through exactly what

happened. he specifically asked us to convey to the american people, president zelenskyy did, how grateful they are for what america has done, as you mentioned. economic aid, humanitarian aid, and then, of course, military aid. the embassy staff told us last week they got takeout food. when it came back from the ukrainian restaurant, someone had written on the bag of food, thank you, america, for the himars. that's how involved the country is in this. 16 himars, they've used them incredibly effectively. that's why you're see thing counteroffensive going on, where they just destroyed a russian-made bridge that they had constructed to allow them access. so that's happening at the same time that they're protecting the nuclear power plant. of course, he asked for continued support, not only from us, but our 42 allies across the world, including japan and south

korea, the european union. this isn't just about one country. this is about an evil dictator, vladamir putin, who is literally invading a sovereign country. and if we let him get by with this, he will do it again and again and again. so that was the discussion that we had with president zelenskyy. grateful, of course, needing continued support. that's part of our job and why we went, just the two of us on a bipartisan basis, to be able to convey that to our colleagues, how important it is to continue to support the ukrainians, and how good they have been in terms of using these weapons smartly, actually making ground, not just defending it. i just add with what rob said about the nuclear power plant. they are literally trying to cut off the power to ukraine and then divert it to russian held areas or to russia. that's their game. and at the same time, they're willing to put millions and millions of people at risk. not only in ukraine, but in the

surrounding areas. that's why this trip of the iaea is so important today. >> senator portman, to pick up on that exact thread, this has been, as your trip demonstrates, a largely bipartisan effort to support ukraine. but this is an effort being led by a democratic white house. we're past the six-month mark, there's no end in sight. there have been a few republican voices who have said hey, how much do we want to spend on this? is this where we should be using american money? how concerned are you, and what is your message to keep your colleagues in line, that if this stretches beyond november and into next year, to keep that money flowing? >> first, this is an incredibly important fight. it's in our generation, this is where we're engaging for the fight of freedom. it's not just about ukraine, as senator klobuchar said. it's about global freedom. and so all of us need to stand up. by the way, 42 allies in the

united states has stood together on this. so the freedom loving world has been unified. i'll make the point that it was donald trump who began to provide lethal weaponry to ukraine to defend itself. the obama administration did not agree to do that, but president trump did. it was the republicans that took the lead in providing ukraine what they were asking forat the time. this was prior to the latest invasion. now we have to make sure that the funding we're providing is accountable. whether it's humanitarian aid or state budget support or the defense spending, one thing we did when we were over there is we insisted there be an accountability and end-use monitoring for these weapons so we know where these weapons are going, and that we ensure that any funding that's being provided is going to the essentials, like providing salaries for the law enforcement officials who are needed right now to protect ukraine and to win this war. and then second, we need to be sure that the american people and our colleagues understand

what we are providing is making a huge difference. we discussed the himars, which are long-range rockets the ukrainians have been asking for. we are moving on them, we have 16 units in place. that's public information. these enable the ukrainians finally to be able to reach the russian artillery that's been firing on them incessentally and destroying apartment buildings and churches and schools. we saw some of these buildings destroyed in bucha yesterday. so these weapons are working. what the american people are help progress individual to the ukrainian armed forces, as well as by the way the uk, germany and others, are making a duff -- a difference, they're making progress in the south, moving towards kherson. this would be a huge victory militarily. and in terms of the morale, the

russian troops have incredibly poor morale, but the ukrainian troops are protecting their homeland, their families and freedom. so it was a good visit in the sense that we were able to deliver those messages, and also ensure what we have provided is making a difference. >> and let me just say, senator, you are correct, the obama administration did not provide offensive weapons when they should have provide offensive weapons. we have been critical of them here for that. i will say, since you opened the door on donald trump, i will say yes, he did provide defensive weaponry, only after trying to black hail the president that you visited, president zelenskyy, to try to dig up domestic political dirt. so, again, after by the way -- >> my point is this is -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> i didn't want to bring up

donald trump. i was going to ask those one questions, but you brought him up. i don't think donald trump -- >> i didn't bring him up. i said that a republican administration provided lethal aid, and so the question was, are republicans not willing to support lethal aid to ukraine, is that a problem? my point is, this is something that republicans and democrats have supported. it was a republican administration, after years of you and me and others encouraging a democratic administration to do it, finally a republican administration did provide that lethal aid. that was my point. i think very important to understand right now, we need to keep this up. six months is a long time. on the other hand, progress is being made. think about it, the russians intended to roll into ukraine and take over this country, a democracy, a strong ally of ours, we were at the airfield right outside of kyiv, and just yesterday, and we got to see where a brave unit of national guard kept the russian special forces, these were highly

trained chechens and russians -- >> paratroopers. >> were taking over this airport and beginning the assault on kyiv. these are national guard that had rarely seen combat, and we got the meet the commander of that unit. they were fighting for their homeland and that's why they won. >> one of them had a cell phone video, just like you or i might have taken. he's standing there and the russian helicopters and paratroopers start coming in. and the russians just thought they were going to flip, they were going to leave and let them take over the airport. that would have given them the access to take over kyiv. so that stand, where they basically eliminated the russians that had invaded, so that there wasn't one left, and they stood up to them at that moment, that's what protected kyiv. and so what you're seeing now is the same kind of fights going on in other regions of the country. and one of the things i wanted to say one more time, rob portman was great on this trip. it is a bipartisan support for this. and despite whatever

disagreements we have on other issues is, we are united for democracy and freedom. >> and that's something i brought up at the top of the segment, that americans need to understand that republicans and democrats alike have been working together on this. and this is something to celebrate, that, yes, there are one or two republican senators, a couple of house members, that aren't on board. but the overwhelming majority, and this is something we said also during the russian invasion during the trump administration, talked about how there was bipartisan support to bush -- push back on putin when donald trump was president of the united states. so it's been what the congress has done pushing back onner the new. you said something, senator klobuchar, i want americans to know, because they hear negative news all the time. they need to understand what

people in ukraine are thinking right now, how grateful they are. we hear it from the ambassador of poeland. -- of poland. my daughter, who is in college, worked this summer in poland. and i asked what was your greatest takeaway? she said how grateful the polish people are for america. she said, i've got to tell you, i love my country, but i've never loved it this much. it's amazing. >> exactly. that's right, joe. literally, people coming up and thanking you on the street. you've got the polish people, we went and met with our 101st airborne there that have been working with the ukrainians to maintain the sophisticated weaponry remotely. telemaintenance they call it. we were able to see first hand our military's respect not just

for the ukrainian people, but also for the polish people for taking in all these refugees. i know one day americans will be able to visit ukraine, because it will be a free democracy. and they will then be able to see what we saw, the mass graves. they'll be able to see the damage and, you know, ballet dancers that put on combat gear and went out and did their jobs. musicians left playing alone on a street to worship the culture of ukraine and not let it go. it's just this incredible, emotional moment when you see the russian tanks in the middle of the ukrainian square. they used to be full of street vendors and the like. and the sandbags around the presidential area. they are, as president zelenskyy said, we are here, and our message to them is that we are here for them. >> senators amy klobuchar and

rob portman, thank you both very much. >> thank you for going. >> thank you for taking that trip. still ahead on "morning joe," we're going to turn back to the overnight developments in the justice department's investigation into the classified documents former president trump took with him to his florida home and golf club. nbc news justice correspondent ken dilanian said there is one thing in the trump's legal filing that could dismantle a key defense. and the mayor of jackson, mississippi, will be here, as nearly 180,000 of his residents remain without clean water. you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back. we'll be ri. 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?

republicans in congress call them "entitlements." a "ponzi scheme." the women and men i served with in combat, we earned our benefits. just like people earned their social security and medicare benefits. but republicans in congress have a plan to end so-called "entitlements" in just five years. social security, medicare, even veterans benefits. go online and read the republican plan for yourself. joe biden is fighting to protect social security, medicare and veterans benefits. call joe biden and tell him to keep fighting for our benefits.

did the fbi do that, or was that the way that room looked before they went in there? >> i'm sure you've seen the press today. i do have first hand knowledge. i've been down there, i'm down there frequently.

i've never seen that. i've never, ever seen that. that is not the way his office looks. anybody that knows president trump's office, he has guests frequently there. it is -- it's just a joke. they must have gone in and taken out documents they wanted or cover letters, as it, is and put it about so the public believes this is top secret documents that were on his floor. it's ridiculous. i can tell you personally it's ridiculously. i've never seen that. >> ken dilanian, i'll just let you respond to that argument that they threw these documents all over the floor. donald trump made that argument yesterday. the fbi threw these documents all over to make it look like i store them there. no, that's an evidence photo. part of the argument in that filing was on privacy, that donald trump had a right to privacy, and that the fbi couldn't come in and take documents effectively that belonged to him in his private home. of course, the documents don't

belong to him. we can explain that again. is there anything in this new filing from the trump attorneys that says to you, maybe there will be a special master, maybe the justice department will take another look at how they're reviewing these documents? >> in the filing, no. but i think it's very possible there will be a special master. the justice department, after arguing that there shouldn't be one, in the last set of arguments, said if you grant one, here are some conditions we would like you to impose. in fact, the trump team agreed with some of those conditions. but the trump team, importantly, wants the special master to look at this issue of executive privilege, rather than just attorney/client privilege, which would complicate things and most legal experts say does not exist here. because as the justice department said, there's no claim of executive privilege when you're giving these documents to the executive branch. as we learned in the watergate case with nixon, a criminal investigation always trumps

executive privilege. i thought one of the most interesting things about this trump legal argument document filed last night, and one of the lawyers on that case, james trusty, was the former head of the justice department's organized crime section, so no slouch. but this document was rather bizarre on a lot of levels. one thing it did try to say is the justice department is trying to criminalize what they lawyers call a routine dispute between the president and the national archives and said of course, there's classified documents. as you guys know, donald trump has been arguing on truth social and his allies have been arguing that he declassified all these documents. that argument seems to have gone away. they did not make that in this document last night. they're not arguing, as far as i can tell, that these documents were declassified, which is huge, because if they're

acknowledging they were classified, whatever they say, when trump was the former president, he no longer had access to classified documents. there was no skiff, no special room in mar-a-lago where those documents could have been stored. as you guys said, they were not his documents. they were the property of the united states of america. >> ken dilanian, stay with us. we're going to keep this conversation going. also ahead, joe biden calls the mayor of jackson, mississippi to hear firsthand about the water crisis there. the mayor joins us live in our next hour. "morning joe" will be back in a moment. ll be back in a moment my husband and i have never been more active. shingles doesn't care. i go to spin classes with my coworkers. good for you, shingles doesn't care. because no matter how healthy you feel, your risk of shingles sharply increases after age 50. but shingrix protects. proven over 90% effective, shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults

50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today. ♪♪

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. fox and friends co-host steve doosy had this line of questioning yesterday for the governor of south dakota. take a look. >> ultimately, it comes down to why did he have all that secret

stuff at mar-a-lago? i know his team has said that they declassified it, but that's news to the agencies, that those documents belonged to. and governor, he had -- he had apparently three classified documents in his desk, and then the stuff, as brian detailed on the floor, it shows five yellow folders marked top secret, and another one that says secret sci, which means sensitive compartmentalized information. those are the biggest secrets in the world. why would he -- apparently the former president went through them in january. why wouldn't he say oh, you know what? i really need to turn that back over. why did he have all that stuff at mar-a-lago? >> that's why i think it's important that this is transparent and we do have someone who is outside of the doj looking at this and talking to people what is this information? we don't know what was in there. i think president trump declassified all this information.

let's find out really what the process is, what is right, what's precedent that other presidents have followed -- >> i don't think -- governor, i don't think any president has ever carted off that many documents to their house after they left the presidency. >> none have. if they had, here's the thing, they would have been arrested. the doj would have gone after them. and, again, there you hear, mika, there you hear once again the argument oh, i think he declassified it. no, as ken pointed out, they come up with a thousand different excuses -- >> that actually confirm he has them. >> and each excuse confirms that the last excuse was a lie. and they keep building excuse upon excuse upon excuse that actually knocks the foundation under the previous lies that they have told. >> each excuse, joe, confirms he never says i didn't have these. i didn't do this.

he only confirms that he has them, and he took them. >> but here's his biggest problem, and i want to show another clip. but let me go to ken dilanian on this. ken actually knows what he's talking about, unlike me, when we talk about the law. i should have paid closer attention in law school. mika just said that he's never said that he -- that he didn't have the documents. he did, though, tell the fbi and the doj he didn't have any more documents. and at the end of the day, and charlie savage has been writing about this, you've been talking about it, as well. this is at the heart of donald trump's legal jeopardy. his danger, the obstruction of justice against the doj -- we can argue what's in these letters, whether it's love letters to kim jong-un, whether it's nuclear secrets, whether

it's secrets about emanuel mman macron's love life, we'll find out on another day, we have no idea. but we do know right now, today, according to doj filings, that he obstructed justice, he lied to the doj and said they had turned everything back, and when they came back, they found in this extraordinary filing, twice as many documents that were classified that he had turned over. they found them at mar-a-lago. >> yeah, joe, that's 100% right. even though you have been correctly pointing out that anyone else who took classified documents home would by now be under the jail. we have plenty of examples of that in the intelligence community over the years. the real issue here, it's clear the justice department was treating trump differently. it's bottom line, that is clear from the record. they gave him every opportunity that they would not have

afforded a regular citizen. we can argue about whether that was a good thing or bad thing. it's a fact. they first asked nicely. then they served grand jury subpoenas. so the reason we are at this place, where we had a search warrant served and this massive scandal was erupting, is because the justice department tell they were lied to. as you know, look, as a reporter, if i'm lied to by a government official, i'm not going to forget that. that is going to become my top priorityto ferret out what happened. fbi agents are the same way. when they feel lied to in an investigation, that almost becomes more important than the underlying crime. it's a corruption of our system of justice. we rely on people to comply with grand jury subpoenas, and the law requires them to. in this case, as we know, the justice department said they believe that there was an obstruction here. they haven't pointed the finger directly at donald trump, but who else could have done it?

unless we believe one of his lawyers decided to lie to the doj. in my experience, that's not how this works. lawyers, they know they're putting their license on the line when they sign an affidavit saying something is true. it's very likely that the lawyer who signed that is now a witness in this case and can no longer represent donald trump. so this is absolutely the crux of it now. it's not just a case about classified documents but a case about lying and obstruction of justice. that makes it a much harder decision for the justice department down the road as to whether they indict this case. because you can make an argument that look, the president was once entitled to these arguments, he made some mistakes, maybe we shouldn't charge him. but witness you prove that somebody lied to the doj, how do you walk away from that? >> we've heard from all the reporting that donald trump believed that these documents were his, they belonged to me, and that privacy argument we heard last night from his attorneys. well, karl rove was talking about that last night on fox news. here's what he said.

>> that's its own situation, that the doj is investigating and the trump side has their lawyers and their feelings about what was rightfully his and able to take. but it's just -- >> let's be clear on this. none of these government documents are his to have taken. i agree with the deputy director who said a lot of the former president's problems are of his own creation. under the presidential records act of 1978, you cannot take original documents when you leave the white house, the president of the united states or any of his aides. it's forbidden under the law. why he packed up that material when he had no right to do so, and that's what the government asserts in this filing. they say the former president asked for the return of the documents because he said they were created during his administration, a md the response to the government in

their filing was, that's evidence that they respect his, if they were developed in the white house during his time as president, they belong to the government, not to him. >> this is so clear cut, that there are people who have defended trump a lot who just can't do it on this, because it's so power play he cannot have those documents in his house. we showed steve ducey earlier explaining to his co-host yesterday, you just can't have top secret documents in the top drawer of your desk at mar-a-lago. so this is breaking through in places where some other stories about donald trump have not. coming up, new polling this morning shows democrats making in roads with independents ahead of the midterming. we'll break down the brand new numbers straight ahead on "morning joe." straight ahead on "morning joe."

with just over two months until november's midterm elections, a new survey shows a

major momentum shift for democrats. just crossing this morning, the latest "wall street journal" poll shows 47% of registered voters say if the election were held today, they would vote for the democratic candidate. that is compared to 44% who would vote republican. a big swing from march when republicans held a five-point lead over democrats. a big part of the that shift comes from a change among independent voters who now favor democratic candidates by 3%. back in march, that lead was 12% for republicans. a 15% swing since just march. and when asked about a potential rematch between donald trump and joe biden in 2024, voters say they prefer the current president, 50% to 44%. in march, the two were tied, joe. also in this poll, joe biden's approval number is up to 45%. this is new "wall street journal" poll that just crossed this morning. >> yeah, and there are a lot of different reasons, i suppose this is happening. you could look at the january 6

hearings, but on top of that, you just have to keep going back to the fact that roe was overturned, a half century guarantee of privacy rights for women, where women would make decisions about their bodies, about their pregnancy, about their lives. now you have state legislators, old men in state legislators making those decisions for most part. and we americans don't do well with having a right to privacy taken away after a half century. that has to be a big part of it. we talked about the extremism on the guns, we've talked about the extremism of violent rhetoric. you could look at lindsey graham talking about republican riots that republicans are going to riot in the streets if they don't get their way. if the law is applies to donald trump, donald trump also of course pushing that narrative as well. and also, i say this at the end, because i'm going to go back to what ben shapiro said earlier this week when he said

republicans should move away from donald trump. these days, there is negative partisanship, people don't vote for the most part for legislation that is passed. they vote against a candidate, they vote against the party and right now mika, you're looking at a lot of independents who have shifted dramatically, i'm sure you're looking at a lot of suburban voters, younger voters have moved very quickly. in that case, there is no doubt, no denying this, john dell volpy said this, the student loan forgiveness, i think that has helped joe biden with younger voters where he had just been getting absolutely hammered. so whether you think that is a good idea or not, for joe biden and the democrats, politically, a very good idea. but again, long way to go. but if these numbers holdover the next couple of months, then

it's less likely you'll have that massive red wave that we were expected six months ago and that the republicans should be enjoying. >> and when the votes of women, i think will absolutely resonate in the midterms across the board. joining us now, white house correspondent for reuters, jeff mason. and jeff, if i'm correct, tonight's address to the nation is a white house event and if so what exactly will the president be focusing on, what will he not be focusing on? >> yes, mika, your spot on about that. it is a white house event. he's going to focus on restoring the soul of america. i think despite the fact that it is an official event, you could also view it as the kickoff to president biden's re-emergence on the campaign trail ahead of the midterms. the topic of the soul of america is one that has been a common theme for him up through the 2020 election, he started

talking about that in an atlantic op-ed right after the charlottesville riots. this is something that is near and dear to the president's heart and it is an opportunity for him to sort of frame the narrative ahead of the midterm elections about what democrats are doing, what republicans are doing, and his pledge to uphold democracy and use that as something -- as a contrasting theme for what he views as the other party and the former president are doing. >> hey, jeff, it is jonathan, because it is an official white house event, you're right, it seems unlikely that he'll mention donald trump by name or get into the phenomenon that are the dark brandon memes that have heartened the white house staff in recent weeks. but talk about more on the contrasts. yes, tonight's theme is the soul of america which we have heard this president use quite a bit before. but there are specific topics here, where he and his aides are gone out of their way to say, look, the gop doesn't speak for the common american, that is on

abortion rights, that is on guns and others. tell us more about how they try to frame this going into the stretch run? >> well, and you just mentioned abortion rights. as mika did earlier as well. karine jean-pierre mentioned that from the podium yesterday, trying not to get too deep into politics as a government spokesperson, she mentioned that as an example of rights being take and way. and tieing that theme into restoring the soul of america. so i think you've got multiple topics, jonathan, from that to the string of successes that the president has had legislatively on gun control, on climate change, but overall it is some broad theme of democracy. and pointing or painting the democratic party as supporters of democracy, and the republican party and particularly the quote/unquote maga extremists as not. you saw him do that earlier this week when specifically tieing

the democratic support for efforts to reduce gun violence and saying that you can't be in favor of the police while also defending what happened on january 6. all of those are of a piece. and i think you'll see that sort of summed up tonight in the president's remarks. >> all right, white house correspondent for reuters, jeff mason, thank you very much. we'll be watching the president's address to the nation tonight. coming up, the chairman of the house intelligence committee congressman adam schiff is standing by. he joins our conversation straight ahead on "morning joe."

a beautiful shot of los angeles. 6:00 on the west coast, 9:00 a.m. on the east coast. welcome back to the fourth hour of "morning joe." we have a lot to get to this hour, including donald trump's legal team responding to the justice department's