propositions m and o, because the cost of everything is going up. san francisco collects more tax revenue than nearly any city in america. but our streets are dirty and public safety is not getting better. i'm working hard to live within my budget. the city should too. join me in voting no on m and o. now is not the time to raise taxes in san francisco. vote no on m and o. hi, there everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. it is one of team trump's most brazen and repeated and frankly

absurd claims. since the fbi searched donald trump's private residence and members club back in august. the ex-president declassified all the documents that he could declassify them if he wanted to, quote, even by thinking about it. it is a claim that has been repeated over and over and over again by trump and his allies. the disgraced ex-president mentioned it in public and the media appearances so many times. not one single time has that claim been made in a court of law. now new reporting suggests that the question of whether there is an a proof that he declassified the documents is a major interest to prosecutors at doj. "new york times" is reporting that federal prosecutors and former president trump's handling of national security documents, what a question one of his confident ants about a claim that trup declassified the documents. that confidante is cash patel,

one of trump's biggest defenders in the documents investigation. he is a trump loyalist who made a career out of pedaling deep conspiracy theories. he was considered toxic and unqualified to hold senior government positions that when donald trump considered naming cash patel deputy director of the fbi, it was trump's own attorney general, bill barr that said it would happen quote, over my dead body. the interest in questioning pa tell about the claim shows that prosecutors see it as potentially relevant to their investigation. into the handling of the documents. either trump or aides obstructed the government's efforts to reclaim them. the push for the testimony has also created friction between the justice department and mr. patel's lawyers who argued that the department could use his statements against him. patel reportedly pleaded the fifth before a grand jury

setting up a showdown before the doj that wants a judge to compel him to answer questions. and now patel said this, quote, whether the justice department the grant him um immunity to secure his testimony. that could have major consequences for the investigation and for the ex-president. trump's declassification defense under scrutiny you about the justice department is where we start today. he is here and "the new york times" pulls pulitzer prize winner and andrew wiseman, former prosecutor and senior member of robert mueller's special counsel investigation as well as msnbc legal analyst. miles taylor is back, former chief of staff. he is at the justice department's national security

division. charlie savage, take us through what you and your colleagues are reporting. >> sure. so as you said, hovering over this whole document thing has been trump's claim in public as part of his pr defense of himself that he declassified everything that he took with him to mar-a-lago. there is always something a little weird about that because the crimes that were cited in the search warrant affidavit as the basisst investigation, do not depend on those documents still being actively classified. the team investigating this matter is interested if there is any thaefdz trump declassified the documents before he left office. or whether this is just a lie to be saying on television. his lawyers are refusing to repeat it in court or offer any

evidence that may be true. of course there are sanctions on lawyers who lie in court. they have been asking cash pate wlochlt publicly claimed that trump did declassify lots of document that's have not -- that may be an issue here. some of the ones at issue here. they've asked him before the grand jury to answer, is that really true? under oath, repeat it. what did you say. ? what did he say? what did you see. he is taking the fifth amendment against self-incrimination to avoid answering the questions. which now sets off this debate or internal negotiation over whether to grant him immunity to force him to testify. >> charlie savage, there is a very high bar and legal experts have grant anyone immunity. what would happen next if you twor be granted immunity. would the questioning be started

immediately? what liability would efface if he were to lie? >> well, so my understanding is slightly different. i think some of the other panelist here's like andrew has a lot of experience in grand jury room is also a good person to weigh in. unless they're trying to ask him about a crime he committed, the bar may be low to grant immunity. we simply need to write up a piece of paper saying you can't say anything in response to the questions won't be used against you in a court of law. have the judge sign it and then the judge would direct him to answer. they call that calling back before the grand jury. he wants again to try to use the fife toth avoid answering. >> andrew, weigh in on that. if the bar is so low, why hasn't it happened yet? the reason it has not happened so far is because you usually

want to accord somebody immunity when it is necessary. bert criteria if can you do it is make a criminal case out of a person and require them to plead guilty if they have committed a crime. sometimes you don't have that luxury. and you actually decide, you know what? i'm going to give the person immunity. we really want to know what that person has to say. the process for that is very easy. the government as charlie noted writes up a short motion. it is routinely granted. there is nothing really argued. and then the judge accords the person under federal statute, federal immunity which means that none of the statements that are made by cash patel in the grand jury or leads from that statement can be used against him. however, if he were to lie in the grand jury or commit any other crime after he supported immunity, he could be prosecuted

for that assuming the government can make that case. i find it quite interesting according to the reporting bye-bye charlie and the colleagues there seems to have been a lot of dispute between the government and mr. patel's attorneys about whether mr. patel can take the fifth amendment. if i'm very curious and odd. that is extremely unusual. >> follow up and explain that. charlie, take us through what you reported on that front and allow andrew to add context about why that is so extraordinary? >> so what we collectively have reported is that the prosecutors have asked the judge overseeing the grand jury to reject the idea that the fifth amendment had anything to say about the kind of questions they were asking. if they were asking if they wanted to ask him is it true what you said on television that trump declassified the things, it's not immediately obvious why that would be incriminating

against mr. patel, lying to the public, lying to the press is not a crime. so apparently, parentally, there is a little bit of merk. the prosecutors thought there was no need to go through the whole exercise. but the judge disagreed. that's why we're in a space of considering how broad the immunity to draft now. >> so let me just share for our viewers the way the government has used these statements and as charlie said and i think we learned the last five years, if it were crime to lie to the press, everyone that's ever been within six inches of donald trump would have had to build new prisons by now. let me read what cash patel said to the press about the classification. this is from brightbar. quote, trump declassified whole sets of materials in anticipation of leaving government. he thought the american people should have the right to read themselves. so he told breitbart news a phone interview.

white house counsel failed to change the paperwork. that doesn't mean the information wasn't declassified. patel said ways there with trump when he said we are declassifying this information. now notably, andrew, trump doesn't say that in an interview. and we know from watching him under investigation in russia that he usually projects, he thinks he's his own best spokesperson when under scrutiny. now especially when he is under criminal investigation. he never said what cash patel said. he never said, quote, i said we're declassifying this information. he told sean hannity, quote, you can just think it. what are they trying to push through here, andrew? >> well, it's unclear what exactly the president's planning on saying as a legal defense if he were to be indicted. but the issue that is unusual and that charlie is getting at is really goes to your question, nicole about, why hasn't this

happened already? the way this procedurely takes place is cash patel and lawyers show up in the grand jury and cash patel asserts the fifth amendment. as lon as there is a good faith belief that a truthful answer would tend to incriminate you and can just be a building block. i doesn't have to be i committed a crime. it can be some fact that the government can use to lead to a potential criminal case. it's extremely unusual for the government to challenge somebody who is asserting the fifth amendment n 21 years in the government, i never done it. i never heard of anyone doing it. and it seems like there was that push back by the government. and that the court, according to their reporting, sided with mr. patel and said does he have a valid basis to assert the fifth amendment. and that means that government has to decide are they going to

now immunize him to get his information? and it's just fine to point out, it's worth remembering that the recording is about cash patel being interviewed about just declassification. he may have a host of other information such as were the documents going to be disseminated? did he know about the documents and which ones? there are a host of facts that if you were in the grand jury you would be asking about if you were the government. >> right. and the question about the dissemination is interesting. he is way outside the government now. all kind of things you mute want to know from a fellow like. that i want to share how the government has already used cash patel's public statements. the mar-a-lago search affidavit says this, i'm aware of an article published ate breitbart on may 25th, 2022 which states that cash patel, a former top administration official characterizes misleading reports

and other news organizations that now i have found classified materials among records that former president provided to mar-a-lago. he algz such reports were misleading because the former president declassified the materials at issue. he says that on may 5th. i don't know off the top of my head how many filing there's are or by how many lawyers. he's been through quite a few. they don't ever assert in writing or court that he declassified anything. how do you assess this issue and the new reporting about it? >> the reason his lawyers have not made the representations in court is because they don't have faith in the accuracy of the representations. they don't want to subject themselves to liability. look in, a case like this nicole, prosecutors are going to want a 360 degree perspective on all the relevant facts. it's true as charlie pointed out that it's not necessary as a technical matter of law for

documents to be classified. it was enacted long before the modern classification system. as a practical matter though, if it were true, hypothetically speaking, mr. trump in fact took concrete action to declassify as mater of law the documents, you know, that would weaken the prosecutoral merit of bringing a charge under the espionage act for willful retention. i can think of only one case when i was chief of the counter intelligence section and the first case in history where i authorized charges in the case where documents weren't classified. but that's because they had to do with the schemes, the schematics and designs of a u.s. navy vessel that were of interest to a foreign power. so it's a rare case where nonclassified documents are going to be used as basis for a willful retention charge. i think that the department wants to button up everything

there is to know, to take night account. and mr. patel, a truthful testimony in the grand jury that in fact donald trump told him or present for a decision, even a verbal decision, that i'm declassifying the documents. it would remain to be seen which documents he is talking about. the that will be something that the department will want to take into account. and that ultimate prudential exercise and prudential discretion here. >> david, if you look at that analysis from the other side, it will weaken the government's case. strengthen trump's defense. he is -- we all know, i think everyone has really reported out how stingy he is. he is paying a lot in legal fees. if he had a more robust defense, would we have seen it now? >> you know, i can't get inside donald trump's head. i think his lawyers one after the other and they have been one after the other have a very

difficult control. getting the truth out of one's client is often a very challenging thing to deal w i can't think of a more difficult client to get the truth out of than donald trump. and, look, there are other factors swirling around this whether the documents were declassified. it's not for nothing that the language in the search warrant application was aimed at capturing documents with classification markings. so the obstruction of justice evidence that we see massive in public view is a major aggravating factor that will have a significant effect on the decision whether to charge trump with willful retention as well as concealment of federal records. and what is in the public is only the tip of the iceberg of what the department and the fbi have gathered. and i think these aggravating factors are gathering in weight

and force. they begin to it up the scales and they're going to have to decide whether to accept recommendations by the investigative team to charge the former president. >> just a stunning, stunning statement. i want to talk about who cash patels i think most of our viewers know. went back and looked at the reporting. about how he ascended in the ways that he did. i want to see if we have any run ins or experiences with him in the trump administration. this is from the "washington post." in the trump administration's four year battle with the intelligence community, a reoccurring character was a brash lawyer. he appeared frequently and so many incarnations. he was homeless filling confrontation against what he imagined as the deep state. at the start of the trump administration, was senior

counsel for devin nunez when he charrod the house intel committee and the critic of the investigation by special council robert mueller. the most prominent role as final job as defense secretary and administration's last two months. in that position, according to sources close to events, he challenged the cia and the nsa. and very nearly became acting director of the cia himself. and again, trump's last national security and d.o.j. figures were the ones who actually stopped his asent to those two specific posts. but just help us understand who cash patel is inside the trump administration. >> they tried to keep donald trump in check and thwart the worst impulses.

i would agree with that narrative. over time that access of adults started to disappear. and so you can see the impact they had by their absence. and half way through the administration, many of the folks were gone. and the people like cash pate wlochlt had been suppressed during a lot of that time period, not only got to run free but many of them were elevated into the senior most positions in government especially after the election. now i didn't interact a lot personally with cash patel. i had a conversation with someone on the national security council and noted as the star grew in the white house, people were dodging the nfc. then in december of 2020 after the election, it was now starting to be rumor intelligence within the white house that cash would be named as, you noted, as acting cia director.

one of trump's agencies, one of his appointees said that people that work with cash were terrified of the prospect of him going to cia because they believe at the time that cash's goal was to go find classified information. he wanted to get read into the most sensitive programs in government especially on issues related to russia. solt that information could then potentially be doos declassified. this has some connective tissue to what we're seeing now with the mar-a-lago documents. i think, nicole, one two of things has to be true. either donald trump and cash pa tell are lying about the declassification of the documents in which case trump did retain classified materials. they're telling the truth and somehow the president wrote a declassification order. if that's the case, they implicated themselves in another

crime. if he wrote a declassification order that, is a presidential record. that is not his record. that is the property of the unite government. so they put themselves in an awkward position. if he did where you an order hike that and hasn't shown the government, then he is probably in violation of the presidential records act by having done so. and the government has a very clear need to know if trump declassified that information. why? because it's possible that the biden administration may determine the information needs to be reclassified. let's say, for example, trump declassified everything about nuclear weapons. it would be the authority of the existing president to decide he wanted to reclassify that information so the government has a lot of other needs outside of this criminal case to know whether or not trump is telling the truth. >> could he be examined as a

co-conspirator? >> once he's immunized, he has to every every question. if he refuses to answer after he is immunized, that is something that can cause him to go to jail immediately for contempt. you can literally go from the grand jury room to jail. that very day. so being immunized is an extremely powerful tool that the government has. i would assume that cash patel will have to make that very hard choice which is really to tell the truth or to take the risk of lying under oath in the grand jury. now, of course, lots of people do that. and then it's up to the government to try to make a case that the person has committed perjury. >> i want to ask all of you to stick around. this reporting came just i think one or two news cycles after the original reporting of "the new

york times" about patel alongside ott aide. i have a million questions for all of you on that when we come back. plus, americans made it loud and clear they support and embrace the rules' this stand making legal same sex marriage. they want to rename the law of the land in the future. so we asked this. why is one state grofrn telling voters that marriage should go back the other way? ought to remain between a man and woman snt latest comments from yesterday setting the stage for the stakes of marriage equality 12 days out from the mid terms. we learn that another defendant will face serious consequences for his actions on january 6th. those responsible for putting everything in motion and inciting the riot itself has not been charged with anything. what we know about the ex-president's efforts to make sure that none of his former aids ever testify to federal

prosecutors. the those stories and more after this quick break. the those orsties and more after this quick break what will you do? ♪ what will you change? ♪ will you make something better? ♪ will you create something entirely new? ♪ our dell technologies advisors provide you with the tools and expertise you need to do incredible things. because we believe there's an innovator in all of us. bipolar depression. it made me feel trapped in a fog. this is art inspired by real stories of bipolar depression. i just couldn't find my way out of it. the lows of bipolar depression can take you to a dark place. latuda could make a real difference in your symptoms. latuda was proven to significantly reduce bipolar depression symptoms. and in clinical studies, had no substantial impact on weight. this is where i want to be. call your doctor about sudden behavior changes or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults.

elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion, stiff or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be life threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects. now i'm back where i belong. ask your doctor if latuda is right for you. pay as little as zero dollars for your first prescription.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ (driver 1) it's all you. (driver 2) no, i insist. (driver 1) it's your turn. (burke) get farmers and you could save money with the safe driver discount just by having a clean driving record for three years. get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. (driver 3) come on! ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

president trump to prepare the work the next day often took documents including classified documents to the residence. he had a standing order. there is the word i've been looking for, that documents removed from the oval office and taken to the residence were deemed to be declassified the moment he removed them. >> on the way out of the white house, he issued further declassifying orders, declassifying whole sets of documents. this is a key fact that most americans are missing. president trump as a sitting president is unilateral

authority for declassification. he can stand over a set of documents and say these are now declassified. that is done with definitive action immediately. >> if you're the president united states, you can declassify bay saying it's declassified, even thinking about it. because you're sending it to mar-a-lago or to wherever you are sending it. >> the lawyer didn't trust you hitting from the talking points written by a lawyer. he had a standing order, there's the word. there was no standing order. cash patel saying he issued further declassification orders. this is what has not been produced now in many -- and before the court approves searching mar-a-lago, there was a year and a half in which they could have produced evidence that these were declassified

materials. then he says, can you declassify by thinking it. what is in the public, at least, suggests that it was declassified. >> nicole, as you and everyone else knows, this is an utter fabrication. decisions by presidents to declassify documents are memorialized and socialized first with u.s. intelligence agency stake holders and other national security officials to consider the pros and cons of declassification. there is a specification that the companies and declassification of documents. there isn't a huge all encompassing i hadation of declassification that wash officials some massive classified documents. the notion that trump took specific concrete action to the

declassify something and no one else knew about it except the people talking about it years later for public consumption is ludicrous. >> if he had, that has to be a process to memorialize. there is a process for which there is no evidence. let me cite the times they made that point. the plaintiff does not assert much less provide evidence that any of the seized records bearing classification markings were declassified. the applicant never represented in any of the multiple filings and courts that he declassified any documents. doj to the appeals court. the filings, plaintiff never represented or offered evidence he declassified any of the seized records. it seems that piercing this lie

and exposing it to the record in the testimony is a lie. does that move the government ford? does that move them towards an indictment or charging donald trump? >> i think it does. and to david's point, the former president in fact has followed that formal written policy in the past. sow doesn't get to say that was my normal practice n fact, if the sort of magical declassification had occurred, he is not in keeping with he and everyone else does it. to go bash to cash pa tell, what the government is doing if it immunizes him is to put it to him to say in the grand jury are you going to tell the truth or you are going to maintain under oath this sort of pre preposterous lie? he has to answer questions. tell me exactly where you were when you heard about this order and what did the president say

and what documents did it apply to? was really saying with respect to a document involving nuclear codes he was declassifying it. and tell me about the discussions about why he would declassify it. i mean it's going to go down a rabbit hole that is going to be very, very hard for cash patel to avoid himself being charged with perjury if he does that. it's going to be very, very hard to pull off this kind of lie for all the reasons that all of us o thn show right now are sort of saying this is just a fabrication. because it just doesn't make any sense. >> charlie, this reporting today came on the heels of some incredible reporting at the beginning of the week. the government seems to believe the government lied and included some questions or analysis about whether or not the government

might try to obtain more truthful testimony from mr. nauta as well. the theft a perjury charge. do these represent or can you explain which of the building blocks of the obstruction case and which ones are seeking to get at the facts and donald trump or are they now inextricably linked? >> we believe that he's on some of the tapes moving boxes. the surveillance tapes the government obtained. and what the chatter that is arising and he initially gave some answers about why he was moving the tapes, the boxes. you know, where he was taking them and told them to. et cetera. that the government doesn't think it's correct or was misleading or some mission some way and is now going back at him. this would be part of the

obstruction case. they think he has government document that's don't belong to him are asking for them back. they're eventually getting some back and it's representing this, wait, there is more presnts a subpoena saying giving us all the document that's have classification markings. and handed a stack and poke their heads in the storage closet and told this is everything. and it's not everything. and they learn that, you know, the -- there is more there that leads to the search on august 8 which indeed uncovers 103 more documents with classification markings that were responsive to the subpoena whether or not the disposed declassification happened because it was for documents with markings not classified documents. whatever happened to the document, they still have markings. so he has a piece of the obstruction puzzle here. the whether or not things were declassified, the cash stuff,

that seems to be more about potential for an underlying charge of unlawful, unauthorized resengs of national security secrets and espionage act. because certainly by the time they were demanding that trump get back the documents and wasn't giving them all back that, would seem to be unauthorized retention. there is some question about if he sent them to mar-a-lago before he left office than he had authorization to have them. so it would have to be more about not giving them back later on when he is just private citizen trump. i also like to say one other thing on the cash patel issue. if you go back to his preaugust 8 comments, some of which you quoted here in this about trump declassified things. trump was able to wave his hand and this is declassified. the context of what he is saying there, even if you credit it this is cash patel, not the most

reliable merrier for reality seems to be about specific documents. documents about crossfire hurricane. documents about he's mentioning the ukraine impeachment proceeding. a few other things. things that were in front of trump supposedly in the last days in the oval office. trump made him the representative and he's going to pull the documents out and publicize them. deep state doesn't want people to know about these. but they're going to liberate them. and whatever that, is bhafr connection to reality that does or does not have, it doesn't quite seem to line up with what we're talking about here. they were taking upstairs to the white house over years. they're in box as long side

boxes and golf balls and got taken down to mar-a-lago and trump, without knowing what it all is maybe refuses to give it back. i'm going to keep it, it's mine. that doesn't seem to line up with some set of documents that were sitting on the oval office. they didn't see trump wave the magic hand over to say this is declassified. it's hard to wrap your head around. >> so miles, you can picture what charlie is describing. so the coup fails. i imagine they were fires coming out of the chimneys in the 18 acre complex. he has the piles. maybe he had the crossfire hurricane documents. just take them with him. he had some of the transcripts

for this perfect call. who knows what he took. he was a pack rat. feen you give the frame, there is no evidence that they were declassified either. "the new york times" reported that he was interested in making a deal. let's make a deal. i'll give you my classified stuff. i'll keep yours. the whole way he operated as president is before us. he got a vallet who is to bring him cheeseburgers and diet cokes and move things around. and then lie about it. i'm not sure if i'm capable of feeling sorry for anyone that works for donald trump. they whip up the millions of supporters. there is an active threat right now against the fbi and doj.

what in your view stops this behavior this brazen abuse of the law? what bltability would have any chance of slowing him down? >> i think it's jail time and electoral defeat. one thing that worries me is even if trump receives jail time and people around him heard some of the things that look to be very clearly criminal in nature, i'm not sure electoral defeat is what we're going to see. you know, we released a report this week. we were tracking 250 extremist candidates at the federal, state, and local level. and i expected at the beginning of that process maybe 5% or 10% of the extremist candidates, the election deniers, mega magas individuals would make it through to the general election. maybe 5%, 10%. the our report this week finds that 50%, half of the 250

extremists had made it through to the general election and will be on the ballot in two weeks. the numbers are much greater. now it's just statistics. some of the people will lose. many of them will win. that is the legacy. even if donald trump is removed from the equation, his accolades will be out there. and they won't just be on the campaign trail. they will be in positions of public trust. i want to give you a sense of how bad this almost got. people said who cares? there is only two weeks left in the administration. that's yes wanted to put cash patel in over at the cia. eachst days is another day cash could have dug into our programs. it would seem he is the kind of person and that is more than trump.

charlie savage, inauguration on the reporting from you and your reporting. thank you for helping us make sense of it all. switching gears for us, joe biden is in syracuse, new york, he is talking about jobs and the economy. he is trying to boost democrats, help them keep their jobs the midterm elections 12 days way. on this topic, white house chief of staff ron klain is our guest in the next hour on all. this but first, up next for us, federal protections for same sex marriage could be on the line during these midterm elections in 12 days. as republicans once again find themselves on the wrong side of history and of a very popular and accepted issue. we'll talk about that. ery popul and accepted issue we'll talk about that. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ (vo) what can a nationwide 5g network from t-mobile for business

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

hi, i'm denise. i've lost over 22 pounds with golo in six months and i've kept it off for over a year. i was skeptical about golo in the beginning because i've tried so many different types of diet products before. i've tried detox, i've tried teas, i've tried all different types of pills, so i was skeptical about anything working because it never did. but look what golo has done. look what it has done. i'm in a size 4 pair of pants. go golo. (soft music)

. >> legalizing same sex marriage across the land. >> there was cheering and singing as the decision reaches the crowd up front. ♪ >> exactly where i was when that happened. it's impossible to forget. moving forward as a country. a celebration there in washington. after a decade's long fight. bipartisan one by the time it reached the supreme court for marriage equality. the landmark decision by the united states supreme court

established it as the law of the land on that day. today same sex marriage is being put back on the ballot. so unbelievably out of touch and alarming opinions by today's conservative united states supreme court members. here was south carolina's republican governor henry mcmaster in his debate last night in the year 2022 on whether he would uphold the state's ban on same sex marriage if the high court reverses its own protections. >> gay marriage in our constitution is not allowed and under our state law, it is not allowed. i will follow state law whatever the state law is. but maybe i'm old fashioned, but i think in marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. just that i think that boys ought to play in boys sports and girls ought to play in girl

sports. but i mean you have to have some common sense in this arena. it seems to be changing all the time. >> doesn't changeal ought for seven years. let's bring in tim miller. to miller, mean marriage equality is law of the land. it was celebrated by americans. it was argued by ted olson in legal circles and david boys at the time. so what is happening? >> well, nicole, you see this in civil rights progress across the board, right? always the forces, the traditional forces and mcmaster might call it old fashioned. i call it backwards.

they find other arguments. there is backlash. people are uncomfortable with change. the natural part of humanity. the support for gay marriage is overwhelmingly popular. they're going to be efforts to try to, you know, claw back some of the progress that we've made on gau rights and lgbt rights broadly. i want to be clear, i think it's an extremely low risk that marriage gets rolled back for the reason i just said. most of the country moved on. the republican party is still in the dark ages. but as small chance is still a chance. and democrats in congress and small handful of republicans who are responsible should enshrine this. the democrats talked about putting that up for an election. they did hold a vote in the house of representatives. there some discussion that there is behind the scenes talk about doing this in the lame duck.

i hope that happens h just so people like henry mcmaster don't get a chance to do this should one of the people go back in front of the supreme court. >> clarence thomas put this on the radar as something he was interested in re-examining. you know, roe had upwards of 60% public support too. so overwhelming support from the american people is totally irrelevant to the united states supreme court. and the members on the conserve tough side. 71% of all americans want marriage equality. i was thinking about justice soda mi mayor's comments. she was talking about republican members of the state legislature acting to overturn roe and pass a law that would test a case in the supreme court because who have had been seated on it. because after the course and

kavanaugh confirmations, they were confident a roe result. that has the same stench, if you will, seeing what this court will do and then legislating in response to that. how do you see it? >> yeah. it's understandable that people are skeptical of what some of these conservative justices have said. on the issue of gay marriage given what they said about roe being precedent. and, you know, just alito tried to make a big point when he was handed down and saying this doesn't affect either the contraception or gay marriage. but then he also said that dobbs was -- roe was precedent as well. so there is understandable skepticism. people watched around the country and seen restrictions placed on transgendered people, particularly around this field of sports and transgendered women and girls and sports. and they are fearing now that that could then lead to restrictions on gay marriage.

there are what, 35 american states that have laws on their books that if gay marriage were overturned by the supreme court, it would revert to those bans. and you look at somewhere like south carolina, which has one of those bans on its books, and that is what would happen in that state if the supreme court were to take this up again. that 71% figure, nicolle, is interesting. that's the national average. when you dig down into a state like south carolina, it's actually only 50% support gay marriage, which is a significant difference. and you wonder whether mcmaster wasn't reflecting some of his own consistent base, whether this was just an appeal to them and there aren't any plans for this and it would have to go before the courtney way. but he is reflecting something in his conservative base that he is that politics. >> and that may be generous to him. surrendered to. we'll put in a quick break and be back on the other side. don't go anywhere. go anywhere.

this is the sound of better breathing. fasenra is an add-on treatment for asthma driven by eosinophils. it helps prevent asthma attacks, improve breathing, for asthma driven lower einophils. of oral steroids. fasenra is not a rescue medication or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. ask your doctor about fasenra. ♪ well, the stock is bubbling in the pot ♪ ♪ just till they taste what we've got ♪ [ tires squeal, crash ] when owning a small business gets real,

progressive gets you right back to living the dream. now, where were we? [ cheering ] two new ihop lunch and dinner menu items for twice the goodness, twice the flavor, and twice the choice. sirloin salisbury steak and all-natural salmon. perfect for lunch or dinner. only at ihop. download the app and earn free food with every purchase. you could manufacture a whole new way of manufacturing. you could disrupt buying habits before they disrupt your download thbusiness. earn free you could fire up a new generation of start-ups. and fuel the search for what comes next. so...what are you waiting for? go. baker tilly. vo: it's a new day. because covid vaccines just got a big update. just in time for everyone who works.

with other people. just in time for... ...more togetherness. just in time to say “oh, you bet we'll be there!” because the updated vaccines can now protect against both the original covid virus and omicron. and that's a moment... we've all been waiting for. it's 2022 and governor mcmaster wants to ban same-sex marriage. you just heard that tonight, folks. governor mcmaster has been a politician literally longer than i've been alive. and he's been taking our state backwards the entire time. governor mcmaster has been leading south carolina into the 1950s since the 1980s. >> back with tim and katty. tim, it's amazing how much of the republican identity and brand beyond the insurrection

and the trump enabling is around regression and retrenchment, as you called it, on abortion, on guns, and now on marriage equality. do you think that is front and center, as people head into the midterms? >> well, i think it should be. look, i think joe cunningham is running a great campaign down there in south carolina actually. it could be a model. it's just a tough state for democrats. democrats should be on offense on the marriage issue. i think this is tn too. there was a shooting in st. louis. a 19-year-old bought a gun legally. his mother tried to warn the police, and the police couldn't do anything. so there is two examples there. there are red flag laws or 21-year age limit could have saved the people that got shot in that school in st. louis, the teacher and the student that died from that. so these are popular issues. democrats should be on offense on them, and i think that there has been -- a long time where democrats felt on defense on cultural issues and sometimes felt hesitant to engage, and i

think they should be changing their tune on that. >> katty, this is like the slow-moving rollback of democratic norms on the democratic party. it's a little abrupt. in terms of public opinion, they should be on defense. do you see it that way out in the continue? >> yeah, they certainly should. you look at issues like gay rights, like abortion rights, like gun control, and the majority of americans want action on those three things. they want more rights on those three things. they want more gun control. and yet the organs of the american government aren't fulfilling the issues of the american public. and that's one of the sort of you look at american democracy and whether it's healthy or not at the moment. that's certainly one of the ways in which it's not healthy, in which it's being tested. >> it's so interesting. sort of the warping of majority rule. not enough time with either of you. thank you so much for spending

some time with us. tim miller and katty kay, thank you so much. up next for us here, the effort from the ex-president's legal team to keep former aides from talking to doj prosecutors right now, today, this week. don't go anywhere. we'll have that story for you next. l have that story for you next and ask your doctor about biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in certain adults. it's not a cure, but with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to and stay undetectable. that's when the amount of virus is so low it cannot be measured by a lab test. research shows people who take h-i-v treatment every day and get to and stay undetectable can no longer transmit h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your doctor about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis.

if you have hepatitis b, do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your doctor. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. if you're living with hiv, keep loving who you are. and ask your doctor if biktarvy is right for you. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ kids getting hooked on flavored tobacco, including e-cigarettes. big tobacco lures them in with flavors like lemon drop and bubble gum, candy flavors that get them addicted to tobacco products, and can lead to serious health consequences, even harming their brain development.

that's why pediatricians urge you to vote yes on prop 31. it stops the sale of dangerous flavored tobacco and helps protect kids from nicotine addiction. please vote yes on 31. vote yes on prop 31. ♪♪ as my police who were body camera shows, thousands upon thousands of people seemingly determined to get past us by any means necessary. at some point during the fighting, i was dragged from the line of officers and into the crowd. i heard someone scream, "i got one!" as i was swarmed by a violent mob, they ripped off my badge. they grabbed and stripped me of my radio. they seized ammunition that was secured to my body. they began to beat me with their fists and with what felt like hard metal objects.

>> hi again, everyone. it's 5:00 in new york. that searing account from former metropolitan police officer michael fanone provided some of the deepest and most detailed and most disturbing views into the terror endured by law enforcement officers on january 6th by trump supporters. today the man behind that comment, "i got one," who dragged michael fanone into the crowd of rioter, albuquerque casper head. he was sentenced to the second longest sentence in a january 6th case. before the sentencing, fanone had some scathing words about it that he shared with judge amy berman jackson. he said this, quote. show him the same mercy that he showed me on january 6th, which is none. head is one of more than 900 defendants who have been charged for their roles in the deadly capitol attack. and yet here we are, almost two years since that day, and not one of the people who incited

the angry mop or spread the lies that fueled it have been charged with anything. not one thing. the effort under way to hold those responsible for the insurrection to account. doj's investigation into the attempts to overthrow and subvert the will of the people in trump's defeat in 2020 is pressing on. but mostly out of public view. but we do know a fierce legal battle is under way between the federal government and the ex-president's legal team as the ex-president donald trump is trying to use executive claims, sound familiar? to stop people who work from him from testifying. new reporting in politico gives us an incredible glimpse into this battle. it finds that a federal judge is now considering unsealing documents that show the arguments trump's making. quote, chief judge beryl howell of the u.s. district court for the district of columbia on wednesday asked the district

court to weigh in on unsealing requests made by two media organizations. judge howell's request comes as trump has been quietly waging and losing a court battle in recent weeks to prevent former aides from testifying to the grand jury. judge howell ordered doj and trump's attorneys to respond by november 15th. these filings being sought by politico and "the times" are reporting a september 28th ruling by judge howell against trump. and that related to two grand jury subpoenas that trump had challenged. politico offers this in its reporting, quote, the identity of the recipients of those subpoenas is not clear, but the timing suggests they were connected to testimony from former chief of staff to mike pence marc short and greg jacob, pence's chief counsel. yesterday we covered doj's request of a federal judge to force additional grand jury testimony from two former white house lawyers, pat cipollone and patrick philbin.

this ongoing battle between trump and the doj is where we begin our hour. josh gerstein is here. his by lin is on that politico reporting we read from. also frank figliuzzi, former assistant director for counter intelligence as well as msnbc national security analyst. and harry litman is back, the host of the podcast "talking feds." so josh, take us through not just your reporting, but take us through what's happening. what are you trying to gain access to? >> well, we're trying to gain access to the back and forth, nicolle, that's gone on behind closed doors in the federal courthouse. you know, it sounds like maybe it only played out for weeks. but when you look at the records, this has been going on since june in some form or another. it looks like various white house witnesses went in and gave some testimony, but then were stopped from or perhaps decided not to testify on other specific issues about january 6th. and then you had a series of

battles in front of chief judge beryl howell who oversees the grand juries at u.s. district court in washington. and all that's gone on behind closed doors with only very limited glimpses of what's happening through some court dockets. and even today, nicolle, we saw lawyers for the former president going into the courthouse and coming out of the courthouse for another one of these closed door sessions as you mentioned from our story, it appears that the former president has lost these battles so far because he's the one who tried to take one of them to the d.c. circuit, it would appear. but we don't have a full picture. and that's the picture we're trying to fill in by asking for this additional information from the court. >> josh, let me read from politico's motion to unseal the september 28th ruling from judge howell. sitting sealed on this court's docket is an historic ruling that bears on the ability of former presidents to control and

even silence ex-advisers in matters of urgent national significance. the privileged issues touched upon by your september 28th, 2022 ruling may alter the balance of power in unpredictable ways and bear on the ongoing grand jury proceedings stemming from the january 6th, 2021 attack on the capitol. talk about the public's interest and journalists' interest in needing to see that. >> right. i mean, it's far from unprecedented, nicolle, for these kinds of ruling to come out. i remember covering them way back during the ken starr era, and even before the ken starr era under the clinton white house. these disputes about what kind of information that might be covered by executive privilege, the criminal justice system should have access to, have gone on for decades, and usually some detail about what's happened is made public by the courts. and it's pretty important

because the question is not just one of what's covered by executive privilege, but it's not something that's absolute. it's not the case that a president can just go into court, slap down a paper that says "executive privilege" and the game is over. in fact, in the prior instances i'm aware of, most of these instances, the president's claims to executive privilege were upheld, and then the judges said, but, because of the criminal activity that took place here, that privilege has to be overridden in the national interest. and that's the kind of information that we're looking to get access to, what did judge howl say on that question, what did the three appeals court judges who took up some kind of emergency stay request on this issue just a week and a half ago or so. what did they say? did they explain their reasoning? and why did it apparently not get escalated to the supreme court? that's all things that we'd like to know and we think the american public has the right to know. >> now politico is very careful, josh, to say that we don't know.

that's why you're seeking to have it unsealed. but what happens immediately after they are behind closed doors is that two pence aides testifying, marc short and greg jacob. is it your understanding that we may not know how they ruled because it may have been to limit the questioning? is it important to find out whether there were limits placed on what they could ask? just take me inside the adjacent fact that short and jacob go in right after this happens. >> right. so we think the first time that short and jacob testified to the grand jury, that their questioning was limited in some way perhaps to the basic groundrules that the house january 6th committee applied, which was that direct conversations with the president were off limits. i don't think that the questioners or the witnesses stuck to that in all instances. but it seems like that was also the initial framework for the initial questioning before the grand jury, the criminal grand jury. and now, you know, they've come back since then to testify

further which seems to indicate there are either more questions being asked and probably more questions being answered. the way this looks, it looks like president trump, former president trump lost a round in front of judge howell, went to the d.c. circuit to get some kind of emergency relief, failed to get it at 7:00 p.m. the night before short and jacob were to come back to the grand jury, and then they then appeared, or at least marc short appeared the next day again. so it does appear that if the goal was to block further testimony, the president failed in that. but we just don't have the detailed picture of what went on. >> let me show our viewers what short and jacob testified to under those first circumstances that josh has just articulated with some limits on what they could answer. this was their testimony before the january 6th committee. here is marc short first and greg jacobs second. >> the statement says the vice president and i are in total

agreement. and the vice president has the power to act. is that incorrect? >> i think the record shows that that's incorrect. >> so essentially, the president's sending out a baldly false statement about being in alignment, purported alignment with the vice president, despite all of the predicate that you indicated had gone before their respective positions? is that effectively what happened? >> i interpret the statement as false. i'll let you figure out who sent it out. >> we had an extended discussion an hour and a half to two hours on january 5th, and when i pressed him on the point, i said, john, if the vice president did what you're asking him to do, we would lose 9-0 in the supreme court, wouldn't we? and he initially started it well, i think maybe you would lose only 7-2. and after some further discussion acknowledged, well, yeah, you're right. we would lose 9-0. >> harry litman, marc short i

think has said on fox news that he only testified before the 1-6 committee because he was subpoenaed and had to. he stops well short of getting into any sort of fulsome explanations about what was going on between pence and trump of which he clearly knew. he knew so much that on january 5th, he called in pence's secret service detail and said hey, our guy is in trouble tomorrow. he is in danger. talk about what unlocking marc short to go beyond where he went with congress would mean for the investigation into trump. >> sure. and so i think it's precarious to read docket sheets, but i think that is what happened. in other words, the fight, the skirmish that josh talks about beginning in june first had culminated in testimony that didn't include executive privilege material. then last week, a couple of days before he was set to testify,

trump comes in in an emergency way, and howell first rejects his efforts, a end this it goes to the court of appeal. they reject it. i think there is a little bit of explanation, because you can read in their proceedings today. they're saying we won't do any grand jury material. we really essentially just want your opinions, judge howell. so they have a fair bit to say. it's been reported publicly, for example, around the same time they told people they thought that with trump's working the crowd in this way, he, pence was in physical danger. but this is prelude i think to the bigger fight over executive privilege for cipollone and philbin, which may be going on right now, and the even bigger one over meadows. we talked about the sort of pincer movement in georgia and the federal government trying to get at it. now add to that the press. and if they're successful in this motion, and it's being fast-tracked, we'll know pretty soon where beryl howell was on

this executive privilege issue. there are other ways where we may see it soon. so essentially, trump is being flushed out on this often advanced but legally empty claim. >> so fig, just talk about his investigative matter, how important it is to have fulsome and unrestricted access not just to the people who knew what trump was doing, but to the people who knew they were the victims, the intended victims of the attack. >> yeah, so as an investigator, you're looking at this going look, as i approach potential witnesses, and i'm already doing that, one of the first things they're going to throw back at me is hey, look, i don't know how this is going to turn out in the courts. there is this executive privilege thing that seems to be going on and on and on and delay and delay. how can you assure me that if i even make this monumental decision in my life, perhaps the most significant decision of my

career that it's actually going to make a difference, that it's going to get allowed, that it's going to have impact? how do i do this and then ruin my career and my reputation and say the republican party and then have it dismissed as executive privilege, and now i'm kind of a snitch for nothing at all. and so you have to understand as the investigator that you have got to make -- overcome those arguments. and you have to show that the man who occupied the oval office for four years spent those four years trying to pervert and deride and erode our institutions, particularly the department of justice and utilize the court system to his own twisted benefit. and he's still trying to do it. and you have to tell the potential witness he's not winning. it appears he's not winning at all at any level here. and that's how you get through that. and also, you have to tell the witness, as harry alluded to, the battles right now with

regard to media wanting access to grand jury-related material is not for your testimony. it's not what goes on before the grand jury. it's materials adjacent to the grand jury proceedings, the judge's rulings, the filings from the trump legal team. so you need not be concerned about the secrecy within the grand jury. but it presents a challenge. and that's exactly what the trump legal team wants. >> we talked about marc short. mr. jacob offered again in the setting in the context of a congressional hearing the most direct evidence of the knowledge of the illegality of the eastman plot, that they all knew it was illegal, and trump pursued it with vigor any way. i believe some of that has come out in emails any way, that he was warned not to attest to some of the allegations in georgia specifically because he was alerted to the fact that they were erroneous. but talk, harry, about the importance just of these two.

and i take all of your point that what we're really getting at is access to cipollone and philbin and ultimately meadows. but for the two that are most likely over which this took place, what is the importance of unlocking greg jacobs from any claims of executive privilege? >> well, it's twofold. for starters, they figure there are many schemes right in the january 6th committee and that the doj is considering. so the final -- the final desperate move basically to intimidate pence into playing ball and breaking the law, they're going to be very privy to, including as i said this kind of harrowing detail that's in maggie haberman's latest book, that they felt pence was in actual physical danger because of trump. relatedly, they will know about whether or not they were present, the conversation that trump and pence have on the morning of the 6th when he

really tells pence this is not happening. and trump nevertheless revs up the crowd by making them think it's still open-ended so when they do find out, they are going really berserk. some of the other schemes, the doj one, the phony electors, pence's involvement as far as we know and therefore short and jacobs' would be glancing. but some very direct stuff on that last and sort of most scurrilous of efforts that is the riot itself on january 6th. >> fig, we came in on the news of the second longest sentence handed down. it was the man who assaulted michael fanone. michael fanone has offered testimony before the committee and in court to what he endured that day. in your view, the significance of that sentence today. >> one of the longest sentences so far and well-deserved. it should send a message, it's

part of the deradicalization process. we've talked endlessly about consequences. we finally get to consequences with someone who actually helped lay hands on officers, helped facility assaulting officers, and he gets a substantial sentence for that. and we can see now for those who early on were saying boy, these sentences are kind of light. what's going on here. you could see the strategy here from the prosecutors and doj. we're going ratchet this up accordingly. we're going request longer and longer sentences as we work our way up to people who actually had direct involvement in the violence that day. i think it's working. doj has successfully handled these prosecutions and overcome the arguments of i got caught up with the crowd. please forgive me. i was deluded. judge isn't buying any of that. and this guy is going away for a

very, very long time. >> josh, i'll give you the last word. what is the next thing that will happen that you will know about in your effort to unseal these filings? >> well, i expect within the next couple of weeks the judge has said that the prosecutors and trump's lawyers need to come forward with their views on whether any of this can be made public and how, and she'll make a decision. i think she has generally been a judge -- she is a former senate judiciary committee council. she has generally been a judge who is very pro-disclosure on most parties. and the few times she hasn't again, sometimes she's been slapped down by the court of appeals. so i think her inclination on a matter of this gravity and magnitude is going to be to try to lean in forward and lean in favor of public disclosure, especially if you're talking about the person bringing this to court, the person asking her for relief, if it indeed is the

former president of the united states is just undoubtedly in the national interest to have some of that process put on the public record. >> josh gerstein, thank you for writing about it and for talking to us about it and for starting us off today. frank and harry, stroufnltd when we come back, a government watchdog group is calling for a congressional investigation into both clarence and ginni thoma the watchdog group is called crew. it has done violate work that you already know about, revealing critical information and some of the biggest stories we've been reporting on. crew's president is our next best. plus, with less than two weeks to go before the midterms, president joe biden and the democrats got a big boost from today's news that the economy is growing and gas prices are falling. white house chief of staff ron klain will be our guest later in the show to talk about that. and later, what vladimir putin said about western elites in a high profile speech from moscow today, and what it tells

us about his long-term plans for the war in ukraine. "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. s after a qui. don't go anywhere. h hiv, i learned i can stay undetectable with fewer medicines. that's why i switched to dovato. dovato is for some adults who are starting hiv-1 treatment or replacing their current hiv-1 regimen. detect this: no other complete hiv pill uses fewer medicines to help keep you undetectable than dovato. detect this: most hiv pills contain 3 or 4 medicines. dovato is as effective with just 2. research shows people who take hiv treatment as prescribed and get to and stay undetectable can no longer transmit hiv through sex. don't take dovato if you're allergic to its ingredients, or if you take dofetilide. taking dovato with dofetilide can cause serious or life-threatening side effects. hepatitis b can become harder to treat while on dovato. don't stop dovato without talking to your doctor, as your hepatitis b may worsen or become life-threatening. serious or life-threatening side effects can occur,

including allergic reactions, lactic acid buildup, and liver problems. if you have a rash or other allergic reaction symptoms, stop dovato and get medical help right away. tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems, or if you are, may be, or plan to be pregnant. dovato may harm your unborn baby. use effective birth control while on dovato. do not breastfeed while taking dovato. most common side effects are headache, nausea, diarrhea, trouble sleeping, tiredness, and anxiety. detect this: i stay undetectable with fewer medicines. ask your doctor about switching to dovato.

michael is back. and he's more dangerous. maybe the only way he can die... is if i die too. [ screaming ] it is painstaking work. a lot of it happens behind closed doors. it's vital to the good health of our democracy, using raw, legal might to pry loose information from the federal government that could otherwise and would otherwise remain secret. you may or not heard the name crew before. it stands for citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. but you have benefitted from their good work.

they maintain records from the national archived related to the 15 boxes. some of them are top secret that donald trump took with him to mar-a-lago. they maintain communications from florida governor ron desantis's office having to do with his migrants to martha's vineyard scheme. they uncover material that indicated chuck schumer was the subject of a shooting threat at the u.s. capitol when it was under attack on january 6th. and that's just this month. documents related to the effort to overturn the 2020 election, related to how much the secret service knew before the capitol attack. documents related to how much the secret service paid to stay at donald trump's hotels and various golf properties. c.r.e.w. was a not so quiet driving force before the unearthing of all of it, going to court, seeking the truth. now they're calling for action. in a request sent to the house and senate judiciary committees, c.r.e.w. recommended this, congress investigate ginni thomas for trying to overthrow

the results of the 2020 elect and her husband, supreme court justice clarence thomas for his failure to recuse himself from related cases. joining our conversation, the president of c.r.e.w., noah book binder. thank you for all you have fought to get into public view. tell me -- tell me how you go about targeting information before we get to genni and clarence thomas. >> sure. i appreciate that incredibly kind introduction. and we are always thinking about particularly when we see issues that may reflect on attacks on our democracy and on our government not working for people that it's meant to serve, we're always looking for what information can we get that will help people understand what's going on, that will help people understand who is influencing government in improper ways, and what are the threats that we

need to protecting against. and there are fortunately laws and methods out there for getting a whole lot of information if you're willing to be dogged and go to court. and that's what we do to make sure that the american people know what they need to know to try to have their government working for them. >> at least three times in the last few couple of weeks, i have asked what the source of something, and it was lawsuit you had won and documents you had released. is it that you are so successful in court, or is it that you are putting thousands and thousands and efforts of requests out, and the ones around which you've had success are of great public interest? or is it a little bit of both. >> it's a little bit of both. we try not the flood offices with, you know, an excessive number of requests. we want to be serious that we're really going to try to get the

ones that we are asking for. but when there are requests where we don't get what we think we're entitled to, we will go to court. we will litigate. and i think one of the things that happens is when you show that you're willing to go toe court and when you do win some cases, offices start taking that seriously and being much more willing to give you the things that you're asking for if you're actually entitled to them. >> so let's turn to clarence thomas and ginni thomas. it is almost conventional wisdom that the supreme court is impenetrable to accountability and ethics, which is why it caught my attention that you're calling for this investigation. tell me and go through both clarence thomas in the supreme court and ginni thomas in her role in trying to overturn the election. what is your view? what is c.r.e.w.s view of appropriate accountability and scrutiny level for each. >> sure. ginni thomas, along with being a

citizen of the united states who was involved in encouraging efforts to overturn an election. we know that she texted with then white house chief of staff mark meadows, urging him to take hard-line steps to try to overturn the election. we know she was in touch with officials in at least two states, urging them to put up new slates of electors that were different from the electors that the people of those states had voted for. that's a problem in and of itself. but she also is someone who actually a lot of people don't know has a federal position herself. she serves on the library of congress trust fund board, which controls a great deal of money, federal money. and, you know, somebody working within the federal government who essentially worked to overturn that government, that's a problem in and of itself. we were not suggesting that she was a central figure in those

efforts, but she played a disturbing role. i think even more troubling, at a time when there's less and less public trust in the supreme court is the fact that you have in justice thomas a supreme court justice who has been ruling on casing about the 2020 election and about the efforts to overturn it when his spouse was in some way involved in those efforts. he was the lone vote against allowing the january 6th committee in congress to obtain white house communications related to january 6th, and it certainly -- we know that his -- that ginni thomas was in communication with the white house on related issues. that seems like a clear conflict of interest that even if there wasn't a direct conflict of interest, there is certainly a tremendous appearance of bias.

supreme court justices shouldn't be sitting on cases, making decisions on cases where the american public is going to feel like they're biased. and that's a huge problem. we know the court is not as far as we can see doing anything that is significant to police itself. and that's why we've asked congress to get involved and to look into this. >> noah, has there been any response? >> not as of yet. we know that the january 6th committee did interview ginni thomas, and that was important. i think they're more focused on that plateau to overturn the election itself and less on this issue of possible conflicts of interest at the supreme court. the house judiciary committee has looked into that issue more broadly about the need for a binding code of conduct for the supreme court and some members

have talked about justice thomas' conduct. it's not that there has been nothing, but there hasn't yet been a full-scale investigation into this. and we think that it's time for that to happen. >> harry, the conservative justices on the united states supreme court believe that there is a crisis in terms of a lack of public trust in the supreme court. just ask them. they give speeches about it all the time. what should the response be to noah's call for more transparency? >> as for the justices, the right response, and it's overdue is a code of conduct. i think at the root of some of the distrust, because thomas can say with some legitimacy look, i don't talk to my wife unless you can show other weiss and not fair to make me recuse because of that, and people don't really buy it because they know that justices decide for themselves.

so i think c.r.e.w., which by the way you said up front does phenomenal work in shining the flight spotlight in many different places. as it pertains to the justice, it will be one more call not to be answered immediately. i think congress and both houses have bigger fish to fry in the immediate future. but it will be again another call and more momentum for a code of conduct, just as lower court of appeals judges have that would apply to the justices as well. >> frank, i'll give you a quick last word on just the importance of prying loose these kinds of documents that, institutions don't want to shine a light on. >> yeah, first, let me just remind people that in case they think that clarence thomas just doesn't know what recusal is, he's recused himself 54 times during his service on the court, including 17 times in cases that just remotely, distantly involve his son's college and where his son works. so he knows how to recuse

himself. most importantly, the work of organizations like c.r.e.w. to bring sunlight into some of the darkest corners of our government would come to a screeching halt if people like trump or trump or people like him were to regain power again because they'd try to put organizations like c.r.e.w. out of business. that's why we need them more than ever. >> noah bookbinder, thank you for your work. i will continue to cover it here. you're welcome to come talk about it any time. frank and harry, thank you for sticking around and being part of our coverage. when we come back, white house chief of staff ron klain will be our guest as the biden administration gets some very welcome good news on the issue that is for many americans top of mind right now, the economy. ron klain is our guest after a quick break. don't go anywhere. at will you d? ♪ what will you change? ♪ will you make something better? ♪ will you create something entirely new? ♪

our dell technologies advisors provide you with the tools and expertise you need to do incredible things. because we believe there's an innovator in all of us. bipolar depression. it made me feel trapped in a fog. this is art inspired by real stories of bipolar depression. i just couldn't find my way out of it. the lows of bipolar depression can take you to a dark place. latuda could make a real difference in your symptoms. latuda was proven to significantly reduce bipolar depression symptoms. and in clinical studies, had no substantial impact on weight. this is where i want to be. call your doctor about sudden behavior changes or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion, stiff or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be life threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects. now i'm back where i belong. ask your doctor if latuda is right for you. pay as little as zero dollars for your first prescription. president biden has now signed the inflation reduction act into law.

ok, so what exactly does it mean for you? out of pocket costs for drugs will be capped. for seniors, insulin will be just $35. families will save $2,400 on health care premiums. energy costs, down an average of $1,800 a year for families. and it's paid for by making the biggest corporations pay what they owe. president biden's bill doesn't fix everything, but it will save your family money.

vo: climate change is fueling a wildfire crisis. president biden's bill doesn't fix everything, destroying our forests. threatening our communities. polluting our air. prop 30 taxes those making over 2 million a year. no one else pays a penny. 30 will reduce the tailpipe emissions that drive climate change. and prevent wildfires and toxic smoke. so we have clean air to breathe. this is about our kids' future. omar: prop 30 helps contain fires and combat tailpipe emissions. vote yes on 30.

where is it written that the united states of america can't be the manufacturing capital of the world? think about this. i mean it sincerely. where in the hell is it written that says we cannot be, as we've heard for the last 25 years, the manufacturing capital of the world? this country lost over 180,000 manufacturing jobs under the last guy that had this job. we've created 700,000 manufacturing jobs on my watch. >> a fired up president joe biden last hour in syracuse, new york delivering on his promise of more jobs and more economic opportunity here in the united

states, including the creation of thousands more right where he was there in upstate new york, the opening of the largest manufacturing facility in u.s. history. also today, the new gdp report shows new positive growth for the u.s. economy and it was higher than expected. the president's trip is part of an all-out push by the administration with less than two weeks ahead of the midterm elections. half a dozen economic-focused events by biden administration officials today. but tomorrow members of the president's cabinet will have made 77 trips to 29 states just this month to discuss the administration priorities and policies. many focus on their economic oogt. agent. joining us now white house chief of staff ron klain. >> thank you for having me. >> the good news comes in. sometimes it's wiped out or obscured or distorted. what are you doing? what is in place to make sure this news reaches all americans?

>> well, again, thanks for having me, nicolle. look, it's important that the news reach all americans. but it's more important that the economy improve for all americans. and today we saw some signs of that. the building, as you said, of the largest manufacturing facility in the history of the country bringing thousands of high-paying jobs to central new york. it's one of a number of such events the president has been able to announce thanks to our passing the chips in science act and our climate change investments. they're bringing jobs, manufacturing jobs to america. as you said, today we learned that the economy grew last quarter. and inside that gdp report was also the good news that price increases had moderated. so-called pc price index came down. and also, that real income after inflation went up after the last quarter. that's a reversal from earlier this year. i think one of the measures we're seeing that really relates to the american people, that people see in their own lives, the price of gas is dropping dramatically in our country once

again. it was a couple of weeks ago the most common pump price was $3.79. today it's down to $3.39, and it continues to fall. we're seeing progress. there is a lot of work left to do, though. i know prices still squeeze people in the grocery store, even at the gas station with the decline. that's why the president passed the inflation reduction act, why we're going to be implementing it next year to bring down prices even more. >> there is something about the audacity of the other side's messaging on economic policies. and even when trusts have put in place some of the very things they champion. just wait, we're going to bring all that here to you. she is long gone. what is the contrast in these sort of two weeks ahead of big decisions for voters and people to make in the next two weeks. >> look, nicolle, you heard the president address some of that in syracuse today. one of the things we did before congress went away is pass the inflation reduction act.

it's an actual plan to bring down inflation. it starts in january. what does it mean? it means the price of prescription drugs goes down. it means there is a cap on what people spend on their drugs. it brings down the price of health care premiums. it creates tax incentives to bring down the cost of energy efficiency appliances. and it brings down inflation also by making corporations for the first time ever pay a 15% minimum tax instead of paying their fair share. what are republican congressional leaders talking about to address inflation? ironically, they say one of the first things they'll do is repeal the inflation reduction act. bring the price of drugs back up, get rid of the cap on what people are spending, so middle class people have the burden, or so we blow a hole in the deficit. i think the contrast -- and then they're talking about later in the year using the debt limit to put the country -- to crash the country's economy unless the president agrees to cut social security, cut medicare. so i think there is a big difference between the two

directions that the president wants to take the country and what congressional republicans are talking about. >> ron, the president at an event earlier this week, i think he was getting his booster, mentioned maybe inadvertently, maybe this is him just answering the question asked of him, that he spent a lot of time talking about the signals coming from vladimir putin public and private. a big speech today i'm sure for multiple audiences on putin's part, his domestic audience and his critics in the west, talking about two wests. really, a lot of saber rattling rhetorically speaking. what is the president's view of vladimir putin right now and of what he is capable of? a lot of talk of dirty bomb, a lot of projection. what is the president's current thinking? >> well, look. all year basically since february, we've been helping the ukrainians fight this war, resist russian aggression. and i think we're starting to

see more progress in that. ukrainians are making up ground on the battlefield, and particularly in the southern part of ukraine. and contrary to what people thought in february, kyiv is free. and ukraine is still a free country. and the russians have been dealt a serious blow. now in response to all that, we've seen putin turn up the dial on really humanitarian outrages, attacks on civilians, attacks on civilian infrastructure, things that serve no military purpose but just are designed to inflict misery on the people of ukraine. so we know what he's capable of, it's that. as the president has said all along, this war could end tomorrow if vladimir putin would withdraw his troops, go back to where we were on february 24th, and let the people of ukraine have what is their right, which is the ability to live in peace, to have a democratic country, and to pursue their dreams. that's what we're trying to help the ukrainians do. we've provided unprecedented

economic and military assistance to make that possible. and we're going to continue to have ukraine's back for as listening as this war continues. >> ron klain, the man on whose desk everything lands. thank you for taking some time to talk to us today. a busy week for you. thank you. >> always a pleasure. thanks, nicolle. >> thank you. when we come back, we'll have a live report from our friend cal perry who is in kyiv. the signals from moscow ron and i were discussing suggest russia is looking to escalate its war on ukraine. that's next. they say you eat with your eyes first,

so here's a good look at our new thick n fluffy french toast. artisan challah dipped in vanilla cinnamon batter. french toast the way it's meant to be. try all three flavors. only at ihop. download the app and earn free food with every purchase. what should the future deliver? onl(music)op. progress... (music) ...innovation... (music) ...discovery? or simply stability... ...security... ...protection? you shouldn't have to choose. (music) gold. your strategic advantage. (music) visit goldhub.com. it's nice to unwind after a long

week of telling people how liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need! (limu squawks) he's a natural. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪ announcer: type 2 diabetes? only pay for what you need. discover the power of 3 in the ozempic® tri-zone. in my ozempic® tri-zone, i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. announcer: ozempic® provides powerful a1c reduction. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. and you may lose weight. adults lost up to 14 pounds. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling

in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. join the millions already taking ozempic®. ask your health care provider about the ozempic® tri-zone. announcer: you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription. wayfair's way day is here! get low prices on thousands of items for your home. shop bedroom furniture from $7. and area rugs up to 80% off. shop way day before it's gone. at wayfair. ♪ wayfair, you've got just what i need ♪

in his annual foreign policy speech today, russian president vladimir putin seemed to have the midterms on his mind. he seemed to direct his address at conservatives in the u.s. and europe, saying that russia did not fundamentally see itself as a, quote, enemy of the west, but that there were two wests, one that aligned with russia's traditional christian values, and the other which acts, according to vladimir putin, as the, quote, weapon of the neo liberal elite. while he did not mention the midterms explicitly, putin's remarks today show his intent and intention of building relationships with western conservatives in the coming months as he hopes months as he americans and europeans alike an adventure through lose interest in supporting ukraine and force the west into negotiations. let's bring in cal perry live in kyiv. tell me whatever you have been covering and seeing and talk about. we watched this putin speech

today. i know some of your reporting shows ukrainian civilians know the midterms are coming and they pleaded with us to keep focused on the plight for democracy. tell me what you're hearing. >> reporter: and i have been searching desperately for anyone who took today's speech seriously. it was four hours long and kind of went off the rails. the reality here in ukraine is i spent the day before yesterday interviewing a woman who spent four months in a p.o.w. camp listening to her comrades being beaten sometimes to death. we spent a day in school running the kids to a bomb shelter. on the street we met a woman whose husband has been a p.o.w. for four months. so, the vladimir putin speech didn't really make an america here. and even though he says that he's not going to use nuclear weapons, nobody here believes him. he said he wasn't going to invade kyiv. so it's hard to match what he's saying with the reality here on the ground. all the time, of course, you have the ukrainian army making

significant gains in places like kherson. what we don't know -- and i want to stress this -- is we don't know the cost that's being paid by the ukrainian military. we don't have a good handle on the death toll. we don't know what's happening at the front because we don't have access to it and there's a media blackout. recently, top ukrainian officials saying, don't come back for the winter. we can't keep the power, water on. vladimir putin's speech fell flat. most people here probably won't pay attention. >> tell me more of your conversation with the woman held as a prisoner of war. >> she was working in the northern part of the country, and she was in a town that came under occupation by the russians, and she helped take pictures of russian vehicles and sent them back to the ukrainian military. then the ukrainian military took out the vehicles in a military

strike, and the russians knew immediately it was her, she's a spy. they took her north, stuck her in a p.o.w. full of prisoners of war. she said over the course of four months she lost her mind, thought about killing herself. the hardest thing she said, was listening to the sounds of beatings in the cells next to her. she said it was worse than being torture herself, listening tot cries and screams of the young men being punched in the ribs, punched in the liver. her mom was sitting in the room listening to her tell me this story. by the way, she was telling me this story in ukrainian and i'm getting it through a translator, but i honestly didn't need the translator, because you knew what she was saying. the face of her mother listening to tell this story was awful. surrounding this interview is the room they're all living in, about 20 minutes outside kyiv. no electricity, no water.

next to the phones was a pistol. the reason it stuck out to me was the russians are nowhere near kyiv. they're hundreds of miles away. but the family is so traumatized she can't fall asleep unless she has a pistol next to her bed. >> oh, my god. cal, your reporting on what the war's done to the ukrainian people is in a league of its own. thanks for talking to us. please stay safe. >> thanks for the time, nicolle. thank you. quick break for us. we'll be right back. ick break fs we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

if you're living in the darkness of bipolar i or bipolar ii depression, caplyta can help let in the lyte. discover caplyta. caplyta is a once-daily pill proven to deliver significant relief across bipolar depression. unlike some medicines that only treat bipolar i, caplyta treats both bipolar i and bipolar ii depression. and in clinical trials, movement disorders and weight gain were not common. call your doctor about sudden mood changes, behaviors, or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants may increase these risks in young adults. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion, stiff or uncontrollable muscle movements which may be life threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects.

in the darkness of bipolar i or ii depression, caplyta can help you let in the lyte. ask your doctor about caplyta, from intra-cellular therapies. ♪ hit it!♪ ♪it takes two to make a thing go right♪ ♪it takes two to make it outta sight♪ ♪one, two, get loose now! it takes two to make a-♪ get double rewards points this fall. book now at bestwestern.com. one last thing for us. it's a fist nor representative liz cheney. for the first time in her many years of public service, the life long republican and committee chair is endorsing a democratic candidate. she'll hold an event for elissa slotkin of michigan who's in a tight race in michigan's seventh district. it comes after cheney promised

to boost candidates ahead of the midterms. we'll see if she decides to endorse anymore. quick break for us. we'll be right back. k for us we'll be right back. our dell technologies advisors can provide you with the tools and expertise you need to bring out the innovator in you. bipolar depression. it made me feel trapped in a fog. this is art inspired by real stories of bipolar depression. i just couldn't find my way out of it. the lows of bipolar depression can take you to a dark place. latuda could make a real difference in your symptoms. latuda was proven to significantly reduce bipolar depression symptoms. and in clinical studies, had no substantial impact on weight. this is where i want to be. call your doctor about sudden behavior changes or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion, stiff or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be life threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects. now i'm back where i belong. ask your doctor if

latuda is right for you. pay as little as zero dollars for your first prescription. ♪ ♪ have diabetes? know where your glucose is? with the freestyle libre 3 system, know your glucose and where it's heading. no fingersticks needed. now the world's smallest, thinnest sensor sends your glucose levels directly to your smartphone. manage your diabetes with more confidence and lower your a1c now you know freestyle libre 3. try it for free at freestylelibre.us.

this is our very last thing, we promise. in one hour, you can watch the interview with pennsylvania senate candidate john fetterman at 7:00 p.m. eastern on the readout. right now, though "the beat" with ari melber starts. hello, ari. >> hello, nicolle. nicolle was mentioning what's coming up. we've also got the music. why? because it's on. we are in the middle of early voting. the election now just 12 days