comcast business. powering possibilities.

we have several developing stories as we come on the air, the new microscope for the white house, a magic number in the santos saga, and the dow up, inflation down. let's talk about what is happening right now at the white house. you see it on the left-hand side of your screen. we're expecting to hear from the press secretary, taking the podium any minute, after that news out of the department of justice, yet another special counsel now getting to work, this time on an investigation into president biden and his handling of classified documents, as he is leaving the vice presidency, the white house and the legal team are here standing by live, along with a member of congressional leadership from the hill. also this hour, the art of the dodge. congressman george santos, hitting the air waves today and what he is saying about the rolling calls to resign and why the number 142 is trending on

this one today. plus, stocks looking pretty good as we get closer to the losing bell, take a look at the big bord, the new report showing inflation easing up with all eyes on what the fed will say less than 24 hours from now. i'm hallie jackson joined by white house correspondent and justice and justice correspondent ken dilanian, and ryan nobles and former senior member of the mueller investigation and msnbc legal analyst, andrew weissmann, who is joining us as well. carol, i'll start with you. because presumably, karine jean-pierre will come out at the white house briefing and tough to imagine she goes much beyond what the white house has already said via attorneys et cetera about the president's handling of classified documents, there are still questions that reporters will want to ask. >> that's right, a number of questions that reporters still want to ask, and what we've seen from the white house is they're really taking the lead from the white house counsel's office, even when the president spoke about it earlier today,

essentially read the statement from the white house coun el's office that was put out right before you spoke, what we heard, before he spoke, what we heard from the statement from the lawyer, part of what they say is the president and his team has cooperated with this and since the initial finding of classified documents in early november, and they will continue to cooperate with this, and the lawyer also adds this, he says we are confident that a thorough review will show that these documents were inadvertently misplaced, and the president and his lawyers acted promptly upon discovery of this mistake. so there you have it. they're calling this a mistake. saying that these were inadvertently misplaced documents. this is not something that anyone intended to do. and so that is the position that you're hearing from the white house. what i expect you'll hear from the press secretary is essentially the same thing. and a lot of nonanswers to questions. i mean if she was answering a lot of questions, if she wasn't

answering a lot of questions yesterday, there wasn't a lot of detail and now we have a special counsel and you can bet they are not suddenly going to be far more transparent and giving us details that we don't already know. one thing we did learn from the attorney general is some additional information about the timing of when these documents came to be, came to light, that were handled over to the justice department. we knew about the november 2nd batch of documents. we reported on that. there was a second batch of documents. we now know that was found on december 20th. by the president's team. searching his home in wilmington, delaware. we also now know that the search of the president's home in delaware wrapped up last night, according to the president's legal team. and that this morning, according to the attorney general, the president's legal counsel contacted the justice department to say that they had one additional classified document that they had found at the wilmington home. >> we have that time line up on the screen here as far as what

happened when, from november 4th to before the midterms, all the way up to today, as there have been a significant number of new developments. those developments are plaguing out, carol, not just at -- playing out, carol, not just at the white house, bus ryan nobles, playing out on capitol hill because republicans for days have been calling for an investigation into what has happened here. and are hearing there is satisfaction with the special counsel and there is also important context, some are trying to draw parallels between what happened with president biden and what happened with president trump and there are clear and distinct differents that could be remarkably significant moving forward. >> i think there are two parts an answer to your question in terms of how the republicans are responding to the announcement of a special counsel. there were many of them calling for a special counsel before the announcement, they were happy that the special counsel was announced after the announcement. but that is not going to stop them from doing their own independent investigations into what is going on here. and we know that both the house

oversight committee, and now the select committee on intelligence have asked for information relating to this, and that they would like briefings and that they could be the precurser to the full-on investigations as part of their duties as oversight. that the congress has, and we also heard from speaker kevin mccarthy about all of this, and he made it clear that the congress is going to play a role in getting to the bottom of exactly what happened with these documents. take a listen. >> i think congress has to investigate. another faux pas by the biden administration, about treating law differently, based on your political beliefs, treats one president trump one way and treats president biden a whole different way. >> it's clear that they're going to continue their work as well, and to serve as anything, a check on exactly what the department of justice and the special counsel turn up. >> ryan nobles, thank you you. you're seeing karine jean-pierre on the left-hand side of the

screen and talking about tornado sounds and if she addresses this, we'll come in and show you and bring you q&a with reporters as it happens and we will bring in ken dilanian who covers the justice department and tell us about the special counsel robert hur and the job that is assigned to him and what you're hearing from sources about what happens next. >> robert hur is a sort of consummate career prosecutor who worked, worked his way up in the justice department really having graduated from harvard and stanford law and clerked for former chief justice, and super accomplished guy, who prosecuted everything from gang cases to mortgage fraud and then he found himself at the upper echelons of d.o.j., a republican and appointed by president trump, to be, to one of the top jobs, the principle assistant to the attorney general and makes the trains run on time, and during the trump russia investigation and he worked with rod rosenstein and appointed by trump as the u.s. attorney in maryland.

he's got a terrific reputation i have to say among democrats. we've seen on twitter, the democratic d.o.j. folks singing his praises as somebody they think will play it straight down the middle and people who know him say you wouldn't know what his politics are, he is not partisan, a career prosecutor and in terms of where the investigation goes, it is really interesting because the u.s. attorney in chicago, also a republican appointee, apparently was not able to get to the bottom of this, such that he could say, look, there's no criminality here, we're ending this, we're closing this, and quite the opposite now they're saying we have not answered all of the questions because let's remember the review that is being conducted, no subpoena power, no grand jury, there are a lot of things they can't do. so now this is a criminal investigation and they can subpoena documents and ask witnesses and have a grand jury and they can get to the bottom how and why these classified documents ended up in places they shouldn't have been up to and including interviewing president biden now. >> let me get to andrew

weissmann here, because andrew, you know, if you can talk more about special counsel hur, and about what the white house has made a point to say, karine jean-pierre read the statement that carol read on the air in the briefing room here, and it notably talks about two things that seem like they could be key, as it relates to any culpability, that number one, this was inadvertent, and number two, that the white house, president biden, was immediately cooperative in handing over the documents once they realized this had happened. how does that make a difference here as it relates to the investigation the special counsel will do? >> that's the entire ball game. in order to make it a criminal case, there has to be bad intent. you would have to show that president biden knew that these documents existed, and they were outside of the white house, they were at his home, or at his office, and that he intended them to be there, and retain them in spite of the demand to have them returned. and as you heard from carol, the president is saying that that was, he had no such knowledge,

and he had no such intent. that is exactly what will be looked at by the special counsel. so that is sort of step one. if you can't show knowledge and intent, you're not in the criminal space at all. this may have been, you know, shoddy work, it may be inappropriate, but it is not a criminal matter. second, even if it were a criminal matter, you look at aggravating factors, so for instance, many people have focused on with respect to former president trump the obstruction of justice that was alleged by the department of justice in a search warrant. that is clearly an aggravating factor that was based on telling lies to the department of justice about whether documents were returned, and other conduct such as hiding documents. there's no suggestion now that that was anything that president biden did at any point. but again, we don't know all of the facts yet and that is exactly what the special counsel will be tasked with, getting to the bottom of. >> andrew, thank you.

carol lee, thank you, ken dilanian, thank you you. ryan nobles you're off to do more reporting. i want to bring in democratic congressman from south carolina and the assistant democratic leader jim clyburn. congressman clyburn, thanks for joining us. was appointing a special counsel to investigate this document situation the right move by attorney merrick garland in your view? >> i think so. this is the kind of thing that must be agreed upon by the public, and i don't think you can get the public to agree about anything unless there is complete openness, and so i think that garland did exactly what he should do in this instance, and i hope that when it is all over the public will be supportive of the findings. >> we are just getting word here, from the oversight chairman, congressman comer on the republican side of the aisle, of course, that there will be an investigation by the oversight accountability

committee, with or without the special counsel, he says there will be an investigation into what he describes as president biden's mishandling of classified documents. do you believe it is appropriate to have such a congressional investigation into this, and is it something that you would like to see democrats be a part of? >> well, if they have one, i would like to see democrats be a part of it. but i don't think it's necessary. the fact of the matter is, grandstanding in this instance is not called for. they announced enough investigations about or irrelevant things, and to be investigating the investigators and the investigations, it is just crazy stuff. we ought to be about the business of doing what we need to do to affect the lives of the american people, to make sure that we do what is necessary to keep this country on its march toward a more perfect union, and stop politicking on every subject or every matter that

comes before the congress. >> some of the colleagues on the other side of the aisle have drawn parallels with what is happening now as it relates to the revelation of these classified documents found in the president's areas and what happened with former president trump and the documents that were taken to mar-a-lago. do you see those parallels or do you think that is a disingenuous comparison? >> well a parallel is a parallel and i think that karl rove drew parallels, and the parallel that this is the same and that's why you do parallels to see whether or not they are the same, or whether or not they are different. and in this instance, they are dramatically different. the intent on the part of the president is not there. the cooperation on the part of the president is there. the exact opposite to what you have as a parallel of president, former president trump. >> let me ask you, and thank you, congressman, you've been

clear on your position here as it relates to these documents, there is another big story today and that is the continued calls for congressman george santos to step down. he had given no indication that he is ready to do that. at some point, do you believe it will become untenable for republicans in the house, your colleague tlgs -- colleagues there, to support action to remove him? >> i think the republicans have got the numbers. this is their issue. and they ought to cleanse themselves of this guy. i think that we have an ethics committee, he is now sworn in, he is a member of congress, so he is subject to the ethics committee's determinations and i think it is time for them to do their work, and do it in an open public way, but it would be much better if the republicans were to extricate this guy, and rid themselves of him. >> we've already seen congressman some messaging bills

pass this new congress this term, as it relates to the majority of the house republicans have, we expect to see more of those in the days and in the weeks to come, as a member of leadership, can you give us some insight into the democratic strategy to try to combat that as much as you possibly can? >> well, i'm not getting out in front of our leader, i have full faith and confidence in hakeem jeffries to develop a response that's best for democrats, and i'm going to follow his lead. now, having said that, i do believe that it is important for us to stay on message. and our message is to continue putting people over politics and let them stew in their mess. >> assistant democratic leader congressman jim clyburn, congressman, thank you very much for being back on the show. we appreciate your time this

afternoon. >> thanks for having me. we will take you to the white house briefing, with the apoumt of a special counsel as it relates to the documents situation. we will also talk about coming up the january 6th committee and the reporter behind that scoop is joining us. and we've got an eye on the markets as new data shows inflation may have already peaked. and what it means for you and what it means for your money later in the show. but first, a growing republican call for congressman george santos to step down, as we just talked about with congressman clyburn. what he says it would take for that to happen. in just 60 seconds. we're back in one minute. in juss we're back in one minute

next on behind the series... that run with the champ was magical. i mean the tender chicken, the peppercorn ranch... i love my rings but i'll cherish that lunch... forever. the subway series. the greatest menu of all time. we are watching a new twist in the george van tos saga. the republican congressman from new york lize about his life, where he went to school and work and family's origin, the list goes on and "the new york times" is reporting about a mysterious

and unregistered group that was soliciting a lot of money for the santos group, and the group, looking for a pretty hefty contribution and according to "the times," the group's money to raise money for santos could have broken campaign finance rules because it wasn't registered with the s.e.c. and we should note nbc news has not independently reviewed these records. the lawyer for santos declined to respond to questions about redstone, telling the times, it would be inappropriate to respond to anything related to this investigation of campaign financing. on capitol hill, we are seeing more republicans now calling for santos to resign and he himself is reiterating it is not going to happen. watch. >> i wish well all of their opinions but i was elected by 142,000 people and until those same 142,000 people tell me they don't want me, we will find out in two years. >> grace ashford, "the new york times" reporter who had the story we just laid out.

ali vitali, let me start with you. a lot of cameras on capitol hill trying to figure out what is up with santos and let me play a little bit about you and the team and what you're hearing from some members of the republican party. watch. >> he has a long way to go to earn trust. >> i think it is clear he has lost the confidence. >> the man has to be honest with himself and his constituents and it is just clear to me that he can't do his job. >> so ali, what else are we hearing on the hill? because santos as we played, it doesn't sound like he is anywhere close to stepping down. >> and it doesn't seem that mccarthy is doing anything close to keep him out of congress, it is a hard thing to dork you -- to do, you need a two-thirds vote to get rid of santos and he is doubling down and what is important about the sound that you made, that you had two members of the new york dell gration there, in addition to mccarthy, both of them saying that he should resign, and that makes almost the entire new york delegation here in the house on

that side of the ledger saying that he is resigning and puts them in tandem with the home state party, with the full new york gop, all of them saying that they don't have faith in him to do his job and nevertheless, he says he is staying where he is, and it does leave us at sosht of -- sort of an impasse here. the other point to consider is the political aspect of this which is that the republican majority is already so thin here, they don't want to open themselves up to do another special election in an off year, where there are millions and millions of dollars would pour into the long island area of new york for this race that is on the ground, if you look at the demographics would tilt in the democratic column and that would be a problem for republicans who already have such a tight majority. >> grace, let me turn to you and the group that may have solicited money for santos and why that may have broken campaign finance rules. >> this is a pretty interesting development. a group that was identified itself as redstone strategies,

was reaching out to big zoe nors of the santos campaign, in the last kind of final weeks before the election saying it was trying to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for a big ad buy. however, this group did not appear to be registered with the s.e.c., as you said, in the opening segment, and in fact, no ads have actually been placed for it. so that certainly leaves some really big questions about this group and where the money actually went. >> ali, where does the ethics investigations stand, right? how did that move forward? when we would know more about anything muscular coming from those? >> well, look, typically this is a process that happens behind closed doors, ekts ethics investigations are shrouded in mystery but this, on the house side is evenly divide between republicans and democrats and that's why we're so closely tracking the republican reaction to santos because that could give us some idea potentially of what people could do out of the ethics committee.

you listen to democrats, too and you had clyburn on, he is echoing what other members like leader jeffries and other key members are saying, yes, they agree that george san dose doesn't have a place and shouldn't have a place in congress but this is republicans' mess to clean up. >> that message loud and clear for sure. ali vitali, thank you very much. and grace ashford, thank you. appreciate you both. next up, what questions the d.o.j. want reportedly answers about trump campaign officials about january 6th. we are talking with a reporter on that by line coming up in just a minute. t by line coming n just a minute. (einstein) not so smart. (cecily) well, there is a smarter way to save. (einstein) oh?! (cecily) switch to verizon! (vo) that's right. for a limited time get verizon unlimited for just $25 a line, guaranteed for 3 years. (einstein) brilliant! (vo) only on verizon. (bridget vo) with thyroid eye disease... i hid from the camera. and i wanted to hide from the world. for years, i thought my t.e.d was beyond help... ...but then i asked my doctor about tepezza. (vo) tepezza is the only medicine that treats t.e.d. at the source

not just the symptoms. in a clinical study, more than 8 out of 10 patients taking tepezza had less eye bulging. tepezza is an infusion. patients taking tepezza may have infusion reactions. tell your doctor right away if you experience high blood pressure, fast heartbeat, shortness of breath or muscle pain. before getting tepezza, tell your doctor if you have diabetes, ibd, or are pregnant, or planning to become pregnant. tepezza may raise blood sugar even if you don't have diabetes. and may worsen ibd such as crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. (bridget) now, i'm ready to be seen again. (vo) visit mytepezza.com to find a t.e.d. eye specialist and to see bridget's before and after photos.

life... doesn't stop for diabetes. be ready for every moment, with glucerna. it's the number one doctor recommended brand that is scientifically designed to help manage your blood sugar. live every moment. glucerna. every year, millions of people find a health plan at healthcare.gov during open enrollment. ♪♪ so they can enjoy more visits. ♪♪ have more meet and greets. and have less to worry about.

with the new law, 4 out of 5 customers can find a plan for $10 a month or less with financial help. feel like a million and find your plan during open enrollment. healthcare.gov is here for millions. like you. ♪ ♪ ♪♪ voltaren. the joy of movement. ♪♪ pst. girl. you can do better. at least with your big-name wireless carrier. with xfinity mobile you can get unlimited for $30 per month on the nation's most reliable 5g network. they can even save you hundreds a year on your wireless bill over t-mobile, at&t, and verizon. wow. i can do better! -yes you can! i can do better, too! see how easy it is to save hundreds a year on your wireless bill over t-mobile, verizon, and at&t. talk to our switch squad at your local xfinity store today.

we are keeping an eye on new moves in the d.o.j. criminal investigation into january 6th. with the "washington post" now reporting on this new and wide-ranging subpoena that the justice department sent to trump campaign officials. it asks some new questions related, according to the "post," with information about what these people said about voting machines after 2020, and documents about the fundraising and planning that went into then president trump's rally on the 6th and if these officials had actually lawyered up. i want to bring in the "washington post" investigative reporter for this story, thanks for being with us. your reporting shows that this is an indication of new areas of interest from the d.o.j. explain that to us, what it says about the investigation and what kind of clues we can get. >> as often happens in these kinds of investigations they're not saying much about the investigation and we have to look at what w.h.o. is getting subpoenaed and -- at who is

getting subpoenaed and what direction they're moving so there are been waves of subpoenas that have gone out in recent months, in december, there seemed to be another big wave, some of them went to state and local elections officials, we reported that last month, and then we're now reporting that another wave went to officials from the trump campaign. and just the questions were asked, they were incredibly wide-ranging. all kinds of things, some of which we've seen before, some of which are new, but all about the fundraising for january 6th. and the information that was being gathered about the voter fraud, and the false electors scheme, all kinds of things, they're still asking about it this late date. >> they want information about it, you talked about more trump affiliated groups, talk about why that is important. >> we knew already they were looking at fundraising for former president trump's pac and now they're also asking specifically about the fundraising for something called the election, i think it was the election fence fund. which was something that the

trump campaign raised an enormous amount of money for, right after the election, the january 6th committee in the house found that very little of that money was actually used in defense of the election, it has been used for all kinds of other things, so it sort of looks like what people were being told they were giving money for, and what the money was actually spent on, it might be an area that the prosecutors are now looking into. >> so where does this story go next? >> we got to keep watching who is going into the grand jury, which is another thing that we reported is, that the grand jury activity has been ramping up, really accelerating, and who continues to get subpoenas, and eventually, whether it appears that the prosecutors are actually narrowing down their case. every subpoena that we've seen, just is incredibly wide-ranging, and looking at everything that went into former president trump's efforts to overturn the election. it what will be interesting is when they narrow so we can start to see if there is a direct case

that they appear to be trying to build towards. >> great to have you on, especially with your new reporting as always, appreciate it. >> thank you. we want to tell you now a string of big and dangerous and life-threatening tornadoes ripping across parts of the southeast right now. look at what is happening in alabama. it hit very hard. look at some of the video here. at least 19 reported tornadoes alone today. this is the first look. on at least some of the damage. we have 100,000 people without power. zero power in alabama and tennessee. and this is not over. it is a threat that is going to continue into tonight. and keep in mind, nighttime tornadoes are especially dangerous, they are more deadly because people sometimes are not able to hear the tornado warnings, et cetera. experts say along with these tornadoes you might see hail, you might see winds, like 75 miles an hour gusting, and 24 million people in the area you're looking at are at risk for the severe storms right now. we're going to watch this story and bring you any developments as we get them. still ahead, we're a couple of minutes out now, 30 minutes from the closing bell, after we goat new data showing price

hikes slowing down, maybe they have peaked? we'll talk about it. plus, why ftx co-founder sam bankman-fried is blaming a rival crypto ceo after his own exchange collapsed. the latest that we're hearing from sbf himself. you'll want to hear it. stephanie ruhle's got it in just a minute. e's got it in just a minute moderate-to- we want to take you to the white house briefing with karine

jean-pierre talking about the documents. >> again, he was surprised to see records have been found. he does not know what's in them. and his team, once they identified that these documents were there, they immediately reached out to the archives, the department of justice, and did the rightfully so, did the right thing by turning that over. and they have been cooperating very closely with the department of justice. you actually heard ag, attorney general garland say today, that they heard from his team really shortly after the discovery, and so you know, i just want to make sure that this is understood. that he takes this very seriously. >> had is the kind of thing, this is the kind of thing, it is a serious matter and sloppy handling classified material and multiple locations where it was found. >> i said this in the statement. it is in the statement of his

lawyer, and at the end he said we are cautious, that a thorough review shows that the documents were misplaced and he and his lawyers acted promptly upon this mistake. and i will leave it there. this is something that the president takes very seriously. and we have been coordinating, they have been coordinating, his lawyers, have been coordinating very closely with the department of justice. >> the initial statement was on monday, and then on tuesday, all of the conversations about the documents in the office, however, according to the attorney general, documents were found on december 20th and why was it not immediately addressed and being transparent about it if that was already known and not discussed up front. >> just the transparent, i want to say that we have been transparent here. that is why the minute that his lawyers found those documents, they reported it, they reached out to the archives of the department of justice. and they did that voluntarily. and they were not compelled to do it.

they did it voluntarily. now, i want to step back a little bit as you're asking me about the time line, look, the lawyer said we have been working closely with the department of justice and coordinating a search that was still ongoing to ensure any additional documents were in the proper possession of the government. after that search, after the search concluded last night, we released the statement, disclosing the facts from that search, as you all know, this morning, this is all part of the justice department process, and you heard the attorney general speak to this today. so we are being very careful to be fully cooperative with the department of justice, and providing details as appropriate as part of that process. >> and why fully describe the documents when first asked -- >> and i actually answer had question. i said because there was a process happening that was currently ongoing, and i would refer you back to my comments that i made just yesterday. >> go ahead. >> one thing to clarify to make sure that our reporting is as accurate as possible, if the

special counsel, the white house counsel's statement this morning, said that documents were found in the president's wilmington residence garage and adjacent room and when the president said they were found in storage areas and personal library. and clear this up, which room, where were the documents found. >> let me step back because i know a lot of you have a lot of questions and i will lay this out clearly and precisely and want to make sure that no one is confused as you said larry, as soon as they found the documents, they contacted the national archives, and being fully cooperative with the department of justice as part of this process, as the president's lawyers looked through documents where the documents could have been stored and the counsel's office had a statement explaining that and i would refer to you the statement, i don't have anything more to say

and that search was completed last night and this is in the hands of justice department. i want to be very prudent here, as i said yesterday, as you all have reported, over and over again, so about any questions, about this, any specifics, there is a review going on, and i would refer to the department of justice, or my colleagues in the counsel's office, but again, i'm just not going to go beyond what the president said, we just laid out where, we just laid out the process that was taken. >> and saying we should go off the counsel's statement that it was found in a garage and adjacent room. >> i am not going to go beyond the statement. i completely understand. i just want to be very careful, because there is an ongoing investigation, i want to be prude tent ent here and make sure if you have any additional questions about where, where things were found, again, i refer you to the statement. i'm not going to go beyond what the president said. >> one other part of clarification. if the president said tuesday he was surprised to know about the

documents in the penn biden and he didn't know what was in the documents and he didn't repeat that about the documents found in his residence and was he also surprised to know that they found classified documents in his residence? >> again, he was surprised that the documents were there, and that is also in line with what we, with what we shared this morning. and again, he takes this very seriously. when it comes to classify the information, when it comes to classified documents, and again, it stays the same. he was surprised that the records were found. he does not know what's in them. that has not changed. and again, his team, when they identified that they were, that they were there, they immediately reached out to the archives, reached out to d.o.j., just as they did last night, and as we have pretty much laid out previously. >> and much has been made about the differences here between what you all have handled, the way you have handled these documents and the way that the former president handled documents that were taken from the white house. when the fbi went, garland said when the fbi went to the

location of the residence, and secured these documents, did the fbi just retrieve documents or was there a search of the residence? >> again, i'm just not going to go into the particulars or the specifics of what the department of justice did. i can speak to what we have done. and what is already out there. we laid out a statement pretty extensively on monday. we've been laying out a statement this morning on what was found last night. and just not going to go beyond. i would refer you to the department of justice to give you the specifics on that, as you know there is an ongoing process occurring. >> can you shed any light on how the documents got to these places and why? >> there is an ongoing process. it is being reviewed. i don't have any, i don't have more to share. i'm going to let the department of justice answer any questions as they are looking at this. >> the appointment of a special prosecutor this morning -- >> i'm not going to get into the

decisions that were made by the attorney general. i will say this, and you heard me say this many times before, that this is a president that believes in the independence of the justice department, this is something that he's been saying since the campaign, and you heard me say this over and over, and restoring that independence, so look, we have been very, very careful here, not to appear from the white house to influence their decision making on any number of issues, as you heard me say over and over again, i've said this many times, i'm sure someone has counted the amount of times that i've said that the department of justice is independent and we respect their independence, i am certainly not going to comment on, or give my opinion. or are we going to give our opinion on what the attorney general has today. >> what broadly does the white house think of comparisons between president biden's handling of documents and former president trump's handling? >> i'm not going to get into politics from here. what i can say is what i've laid

out, which is the president takes this very seriously. he does. he said this twice. and he did not know that the records were there when they were found. he does not know what's in them. and what he did, and what his team did is the minute that they realized that the documents were there, they reached out to the archives, they reached out to the department of justice, and i'll just leave it there and i'll leave you all to pontificate and do your work, i will not do that from here. >> and the second set of documents, it completed the ongoing review by the president's legal team last night, does that mean there are no other locations where documents can are stored, there is no other search under way at this moment in time for documents? >> so as i'm just going to again, that is speaking, that pretty much lays it out, that they have, as far as the lawyers, they look through the places where documents could have been stored, and the

counsel's office released a statement on that. now, it is in the hands of the special counsel. >> it is completed -- >> it has been completed. >> and asking, the review was under way when you guys gave a detailed statement about the first documents, the review was under way when the president spoke about the first set of documents, you're now saying, you didn't talk about the second set of documents discovered almost a month prior, because the review was under way. i don't understand, it doesn't make any sense. >> no i didn't -- >> it was under way the entire time, the only difference is that the reporters had information on the first set of documents and chose to exclude the second set of documents. >> let me un-confuse you for a second. we are trying to do this by the book. and i said yesterday, this was under review by the department of justice. and the process is as such. when the president's lawyers realized that the documents existed, that they were there, they reached out to the

department of justice, rightfully so, may i add, that is what you're supposed to do, as lawyers, that's what they did, and they have fully been cooperating with the department of justice. and again, i said this earlier, in answering a question, you heard from the attorney general, he said shortly after the documents were discovered, they we did outreach, the president's lawyers, did outreach to the department of justice and archive. >> that's not what we're asking about. we're asking did -- >> i'm telling you there is a process and we were doing this by the book and ongoing process. i'm not going to get beyond. that but that is how this works. >> you said it was transparent but you sat on all of this information for more than two months. >> we are seeking information and i appreciate and understand why the press office can only

say so much, so help us understand this. who under president's personal counsel did the attorney general refer to today? >> i have to, i was asked that question earlier, let me get back to you, and i actually don't have that answer, i think i know who it is but i want to be 100%. >> bob bower is one, james garland, robert -- >> so i, look, again, i don't want to, i want to say the right thing from here, so we would have to, i got to talk to the white house counsel or you will have to reach out to the white house counsel to talk about who are the personal lawyers. who are the personal lawyers. >> the first set of documents were found in november here in washington. why did it take until yid, until this morning, apparently, for whoever it is, to inform robert, that the final document was found? was that because there were press reports earlier this week and hoping nobody would find out or was it because -- >> there is a process that is an ongoing process that is

considering. they did this by the book. and what i mean by that is the moment that the lawyers discovered that the papers were there, or the documents were there, they reached out to the archives. they reached out to the department of justice. and they immediately, rightfully so, reached out to them, to let them know what they had discovered. and that is the process. that is what we, that is what his lawyers did. and again, it is an ongoing process. as you stated in your question, i am limited in what i can say. it is now in the hands of the department of justice. they are reviewing this, as you know, the special counsel was announced by the attorney general, and so i will leave it there. >> what was the president trying to say when he referenced his corvette. it sounded like he was implying that because his garage was a safe place for his car, the documents were safe, therefore it was safe for the car, it was safe for the documents? is that what he meant? >> look, i'm going to leave his

statement as is. i think you, your colleague who is having a back and forth with the president, you can read the transcript, what was asked of him and why he responded that way. i'm not going to get into specifics. >> when you talk about being transparent, who is we, and what is the definition of transparent in this case? is it the lawyer being transparent legally with the archives and the justice department or is it the white house writ large being transparent with the general public. >> so number one, i have said this multiple times already, we take this very seriously, the president takes this very seriously, he was not aware that the records were there. he does not know what is in the documents. again, classified information, classified documents, he takes very seriously. when they were discovered, and this is the right thing to do, right, his lawyers reached out immediately to the archivists, they reached out to the department of justice, to let them know that the papers, or

the documents were there. >> the attorney general this morning said that the attorneys reached out to the archives, it was only later in december, when the second batch was apparently, that they reached out to the department of justice. >> i will leave it to what the department of justice is laying out. what we're saying is the archivists, we reached out to the department of justice. that is the right thing to do in this case. and not, and, and so i can finish here, what has been transparent in this as well is that the white house counsel has laid out in detail on monday to all of you -- >> not everything, karine and you know that. >> first of all, kant talk about this, because it is the department of justice, it is where they're reviewing. there is a review happening, ed, you know, this we just heard from the attorney general, there is a review. i am limited in what i can say to this. i think you should reach out to the white house counsel. >> on a constant basis, why not

have -- >> i am saying it to you that we have put out lengthy statements and you can reach out to them, as you all have been doing. and i will leave it there. go ahead. go ahead. >> why not have him come and answer questions. >> i am talking to you all pretty regularly the last couple of days. we have put out, they have put out lengthy statements on this. i just read out what richard had to say, and i would refer you to the white house counsel. i am limited in what i can say because, because the department of justice, we see them as being independent when it comes to these types of issues. and so i'm not going to go beyond what the president said. and i'm not going to go beyond what the lawyers said. i have to go around. you asked me, ed -- >> there is going to be a limit in transparency, public, not legal transparency, and what can be shared and said by this white house. >> i disagree. i disagree, ed. there lass not been a limit of transparency.

that is not a limit of transparency. that, i will disagree with you on that. justin? >> thanks, karine. i didn't, i did want to follow up on what was being asked, the president's lawyer acting properly on handing documents over and there is a lingering question why there wasn't an acknowledgment about the second set of documents earlier this week and you said you're working through a process and going by the book and i'm curious if you're trying to hint at the idea that the justice department asked you not to reveal a second set of documents or you were told in some way not to disclose anything that had not been made public? >> i would not jump to those conclusions. that is not what i'm stating. i am genuinely saying to you there is an ongoing process that we are going to fwol, and i am limited in what i can say from here. that is why my white house counsel colleagues, we refer to them, and these past couple of days. now this is in the hands of department of justice. as we, as you all heard from the

attorney general himself. >> i guess i remain confused. if the justice department didn't ask you not to disclose these documents, why on one day, as the news was coming out, tuesday, as everyone was talking about, you didn't say here is everything we know at this point. it was found out, the second set was found outs a his office and searching to make sure that there is nothing else -- >> there is an ongoing process and you heard directly from the attorney general today and that is the process. that is how this is going to go. it is not going to come from here, from me at this podium. it is going to come from the department of justice. and that is the process that is happening currently. >> and i'm going to ask you one thing not about the special counsel. >> now you can now ask a question that you could have asked to kirby. >> for you, you had a question yesterday about the covid vaccine and taking a question

about it. >> i actually did and michael is not here, he will provide the information. first i, i don't want anybody to be confused, as you know this is incredibly important. you can go to 90,000 locations and get a moderna or any covid-19 shot for free, that is currently what folks can do. and they're our best protection against the xbb 1.5 right now. so please, if you haven't, please go get your shot, as you heard from me, as you heard from our covid-19 team here, it has been very clear on why this is important, and why folks should get their shot. as it relates to the question, what senator sanders is talking about, is future shots, and the process of moving forward, moving toward a commercial market commercial market for covid shots. so we share this concern that those shots should be affordable. that is something that we share the concern with senator sanders. the price hike here is hard to

understand or to justify. again, we do have those concerns as well, and we believe that shots should be affordable. >> a couple of basic geography questions that you may not be able to answer, but, is the library a room adjacent to the garage? >> again, i don't have any of this information that i can provide. i would -- this is under review. i would -- i would refer you to the department of justice. i'm just not going to go into specifics here. not something that i can do from here. >> and if the president's corvette stored in the garage where the documents were found, just for pure fact purposes? >> i will basically repeat what the president said. his corvette is in the garage. i'm not going to go beyond what the president said. >> and on the transparency issue, would you admit that earlier this week, the white house shared incomplete information? i think that when we all heard merrick garland say that these

documents at the residence were found on december 20th, that they were notified, that was pretty surprising to all of us based on the statements that you and the president and the counsel's office had made. >> well, as i just said, as you saw in our statement, the documents were found last night, right? they completed the search with documents being found last night. and then this morning, we put out, you heard from the white house counsel, we put out the information on specifically what was found. >> but just one document was found last night? >> the search was continuing, it was ongoing. the process, as i've been saying, was ongoing, and the search is clearly complete and therefore we shared the information with all of you. again, this is an ongoing process. i would refer you to the department of justice. any other specifics or particulars, even on timeline, any other questions that you have. >> right here. >> i'm going to go back. go ahead. >> just a follow-up to a couple of questions.

but is the president -- you said that the search has been completed, but is the president confident that there are no additional documents with classified markings that remain in any other additional locations? >> look, i can just refer you to what his team said. the search is complete. he has confident in this process and i will leave it there. and they've been cooperating very closely with the department of justice. >> and we've got a statement that the white house did not get advanced notice that garland was pointing -- >> that is correct. when did the president learn, how did he learn, was it from the press conference, did he get a heads up before that? >> we learned from the press conference. we were not giving a heads up and we learned from the press conference. >> he was in a funeral at the time. when did someone tell joe. >> he was at funeral, to your point. maybe one of his senior advisers may have told him. i actually don't know specifically when he knew. but what i can say to you is he was not given a heads up, that i can confirm. >> and have you had a chance to talk to him since then? >> i have not had a chance to

talk to the president about this or his reaction. >> does the white house feel like house republicans have a right to conduct an investigation on documents? they've started sending requests saying they're going to look into this. does that fall in the realm of sort of legitimate requests from house republicans right now? >> look, i'm not going to speak to what the house republicans decide to do. what i can speak to is that we are, the president's lawyers are complying, they are working on this with the department of justice, as they have been. again, this is something that the president takes very seriously when it comes to classified information, when it comes to classified documents. i'm just not going to go into what the republicans on the house do or don't do. >> sorry, just separate from this. i was wondering if the white house had any thought on the senate primary in california that's shaping up? >> as you know, the president sees senator feinstein as a longtime friend and also a

colleague who he deeply respects and has collaborated on historic pieces of legislations over the years. and such as the last federal ban on assault weapons. so he respects the talented officials in california who are expressing interest in running for her seat. and we are prohibited from here, as you know, talking about campaigns or elections. not something that i can do from the podium. so it would be inappropriate for me to weigh in with more specifics on any forthcoming senate race, including the one in california, but clearly, he sees her as a longtime friend and colleague. >> yeah, the president, when he was in mexico city and asked about the classified documents that were found in the private office of the penn biden center, said that he didn't know what the documents contained or what was in them. is that the case also with the documents found at his wilmington residence, that he doesn't know what those documents involve?

>> yeah, i already answered the question and he does not know. he's not aware of the records -- >> i'll come over. >> sorry. could you just clarify a little bit more about, when you say that we informed the archives immediately, the department of justice immediately, since this happens, what exactly you said at which juncture. because there seems to be some conflict there. >> look,ly refer you to the department of justice. what i can tell you is that his lawyers reached out to the archivists, to the department of justice, which is what you're supposed to do, which is the right thing to do. i'm not going to get into specifics of who they reached out to first. i would refer you to the white house counsel to get more specifics. it is an ongoing process and i would again refer you to either the white house counsel or the department of justice for that specific question. go ahead. >> just a couple of outstanding clarifications before i get to the questions. >> there were documents in the garage and one document in an adjacent room. merrick garland said the doj was informed of one additional

document this morning. is that the same document? the additional document and the document found in the adjacent room? >> so let me just say, during the review, and this is so tha folks know, the lawyers discovered among personal and political papers a small number of additional obama/biden administration records with classified markings. all but one of these documents were found in storage a spaces and the president's wilmington residence garage. one document consisting of one page was found stored among adjacent materials in an additional room. no materials were found in the rehoboth beach house. i want to underscore that this is something that the president takes very seriously. it underscores how we executed the search with the doj to make sure that they continued cooperating fully with the review. and i think that is what we are trying to be very clear about, is that we have been -- the president's lawyers has been cooperating fully, fully.

i'm not going to get into the specifics as to, you have the statement. the president's lawyer or anything else specifically on this or the department of justice, because they are actually reviewing this currently. >> go back to something we were trying to pin down yesterday. can you tell us today, when did the president find out initially about the first batch of documents or the second batch. our reporting is that he was told on november 2nd. is that true? >> i can tell you that the president has been kept in informed by his counsel throughout this process. i don't have a specific date, but i can tell you that the president was kept informed throughout. don't have a timeline to share for you right now. again, this is under ongoing review. and so i want to be careful and prudent of what i share here at the podium. >> can you tell us when the search started and why they were searching in the first place? was the president concerned that there may be classified documents? did someone tip them off? what sparked this? >> again, i'm just not going to go into details from here or

specifics from here. this is an -- this review is continuing. it's ongoing. i would refer you to the department of justice. >> corrine, you have said repeatedly, the president has said, he takes classified documents very seriously. if that's the case, why were these classified documents being stored in his garage? >> look, again -- and not just me, he has said this, you have heard the president say this twice already. and he's said this before. classified documents and information, he takes that very seriously. and -- >> the garage is the appropriate place to store classified documents? >> i'm not going to go into what he thinks or how he feels about what is currently happening. what i can say for sure, when it comes to this specific issue about classified documents, about classified information, he takes that very seriously. he did not know the records were there. he was surprised that the records were there. let's be very clear --

>> you have been listening to the white house press secretary there, under questioning from reporters about those classified documents found in the president's home, private office, not getting into politics, she says, not going beyond the doj, not going beyond the president, not getting ahead of the process, not getting into key specifics. she did reveal that the white house did not have the heads up about the appointment of a special counsel to look into this matter. we'll have a lot more coverage here on msnbc, starting with nicolle wallace, who's picking it up right now. hey, there, everyone! it's 4:00 in new york, in an apparent attempt to project that this very deliberate and apolitical department of justice is in indeed completely independent and impartial, what we saw today is undeniably the display of two very different standards being ap