i bet you didn't think we'd be starting with the

revolutionary war, but we are. good to be you with. i'm katy tur. america has been arguing about it for its existence entirely, the first debt racked up during the revolutionary war in 1776 when george washington borrowed $7 a million, a ton for that time, to pay for it. 247 years, and now $31.4 trillion later, we have hit our self-imposed limit. again, so what does that mean exactly? house republicans are promising a political showdown in washington, and it also means the beginning of what the treasury department calls extraordinary measures to stave off default. we will explain what those measures are and how they're going to impact you. we will also see what the white house has to say, jared bernstein had so much fun with this yesterday, he is back with us today and while the tug of war how to pay the debt

dominated the headlines today, the investigation into president biden's handling of classified documents after leaving office is just getting started. we've got new reporting on what went down between the justice department and biden's attorneys, back in november, when they made the first discovery at a dc think tank. what was in the letter from the d.o.j. officials to biden's personal lawyer bob bauer, and some new reporting from nbc news, about what it is going to mean for 2024. but let us begin with this lady right here, janet yellen and the treasury. joining me now is nbc news capitol hill correspondent ali vitali and nbc news business and data report brian cheung. so brian, we all have questions about what exactly this means, a lot of people are worried, if we default on our debt, what happens? >> yes, it would be catastrophic. essentially what would happen is that the u.s. treasuries, which are widely regarded as the most liquid trusted financial asset in the world, would lose its

value, lose its credibility, and then the government might have to start drawing from, for example, social security payments, food stamp programs, medicare, and we haven't seen that happen before, there are 78 times since 1960 that congress has either passed to resolve by extending, or suspending the debt limit, which as a reminder is a cap on how much the government can borrow to pay bills that it has already racked up. it is separate from spending from the perspective that this has nothing to do with whether or not money goes to defense or to infrastructure, it's already been spent, it's now how can they pay the bills that are outstanding, we hit the cap today, the u.s. treasury can do things to fit, to keep the lights on, until then all eyes on congress to see if they can they can move perhaps the 79th time to make this debt issue go away. >> we've never been here before and never defaulted so it is a bit of an open question about what would happen, we have gotten close and the markets have reacted, the credit score has been downgraded, but we're

not entirely sure all of the events that will take place, if we do default. >> yes, well, the credit score that you're referencing is back from 2011, but when we're talking about what we're facing right now, financial markets are looking at this closely, which has to do with the u.s. government debt which is the underpinning of not only the u.s. government system but the global financial system as well. for what it's worth, what is an open question, if we pass that june 5th date which by the way is an estimate, it could be later than that, it could be earlier than that, it has to do with a lot of factors, that would really be an important thing to watch for, because if we pass that date, how would the treasury decide to prioritize where the money needs to go, would they immediately stop dropping social security, would they immediately stop financing the other social programs like medicare? we don't know because it hasn't happened before. as history has told us, congress has realized the importance of the issue and voted and moved to resolve the debt ceiling many, many times.

>> many, many times, and again, we're looking at history, we've been in debt a lot over our 200 and nearly 50 years in existence. ali vitali, so republicans have mate this an issue. when democrats have been president. not when republicans have been president. last time a republican was president was a few years ago, and the republicans in the house raised the debt three times, no questions asked, the debt ceiling. so why is it suddenly something that house republicans are willing to potentially shut down the economy for? >> reporter: because now they have the leverage, katy, they have control of the house, and they see this as a moment where they can exercise their power. when i say "they," a lot of same people we were talking about two weeks ago during the mccarthy speakership battle, the holdouts during the speaker battle were able to extract some concessions from mccarthy, along the lines of how money will be spent in the future, but also, teeing up questions about it not being a knee-jerk reaction in the way that it has been in the past, to

just raise the debt ceiling and allow the u.s. to continue paying the debts it already spent its money on. the fact that it is an open question now, does throw us into a bit of a flux here in congress and we know that these are negotiations that are starting in earnest in these early, early points, but that they probably need to, because this is a discussion that is going to take several months for congress to come to a resolution on, you've got democrats on the one hand saying hey, you raised the debt ceiling 70 times already and we need to raise it, the bare minimum we can do to keep the economy afloat and the government functioning and the republicans see it as a pinch point where they think they can extract certain spending concessions from democrats. right now, democrats say they don't want to negotiate on that, republicans say you're going to have to, mccarthy has floated this one idea for example, that they could raise the debt ceiling on a temporary basis, and maybe move to a prior fiscal year spending amount, so take down some discretionary

spending. that wouldn't touch defense money but it would touch other programs like entitlements and democrats talking about that, so all of these things kind of swirling in the pot on capitol hill as we move toshd the battle around the new rolls and a lot of people are really nervous about it. >> do republicans have any leverage? the senate, mitch mcconnell says this is not going to ultimately be an issue, the debt ceiling will get raised and we which r-never going to default on our debt, so mccarthy doesn't have republicans in the senate, obviously not democrats in the senate, he didn't entirely have his own caucus either, the conversation in the house, he didn't have the presidency, what leverage do they have? >> those are really important metrics, but just because mccarthy doesn't have mcconnell and the senate republican leadership doesn't mean he might not be able to pick up a few other people within the senate republican ranks who may want to make this an issue. it is an early point. we know that the senate has been out for most of january, the house is out right now, as this

issue is starting to really bubble, i think the dynamics are really important when you look at the house, the way they have made the concessions on spending in the past, there are enough people who can make this problematic and make it that it is not a given that they will raise the debt ceiling but you're right there, is a reality where moderates within the house republican conference do want to raise the debt ceiling, they think it is irresponsible to do something that has never before happened in the american economy, we could see them move towards democrats on this issue, but it is really early and all i know is this is the issue that all of my sources as we were moving into this congress that were pointing to. >> ali vitali, thank you very much. white house economic adviser jared bernstein, you had so much yesterday, you wanted to come back today. >> i haven't seen you for months, and now, i'm seeing you every day. what's going on here? >> we feel very special here. i want to get just a grounding question out of the way. we had a balanced budget in the late '90s. how are we now a $31.4 trillion

in debt? >> well, i think one of the things that has hurt us is just a real reluctance to raise the revenues we need to meet our spending obligations. for years, republicans in particular were just absolutely unwilling to entertain any revenue increases, especially at the high end of the scale, which is of course where president biden has focused on raising the revenues we need to meet our spending obligations. in biden world, we pay for our long-lasting programs, and we do so by raising revenues at the very top of the scale, above 4000,000 dollars. that means more -- 400,000 dollars, that means more tax fairness, it means more after-tax income equality, and it is a value of this president, it's one of the reasons why we have achieved 1.7 trillion in deficit reduction since he's been in office. >> former pennsylvania senator pat toomey was on with my

colleague andrea mitchell a couple of hours ago, and she asked him about the 2017 tax cut, the trump tax cuts as they're known and let me play his defense of them. >> the tax cuts of 2017 that you referred to as the trump tax cuts ushered in tremendous economic growth, record low unemployment, wage gains that were outpacing inflation, and today, andrea, the federal government is taking in more revenue, tamp tax revenue than was projected prior to the tax reform. so it is clear, and by the way, total revenue is above the historical average as a percentage of our economy. corporate tax revenue, above the historical average. so the tax reform of 2017 has been terrifically pro-growth and constructive. >> he says it has been pro-growth and constructive, andrea pointed out right after that that they weren't exactly progressive tax cuts, that people in the top made out a lot better from those tax cuts than the people in the middle and bottom. >> that was a very misleading analysis there.

>> tell me how you look at it. >> yes, so first of all, remember, let's not lose sight of what we're talking about here. the trump tax cuts added almost $2 trillion to the deficit, trump republicans then went on to add another $2-plus trillion on the spending side, all while republicans, including kevin mccarthy, voted for three increases in the debt ceiling. all right? so i think it is a great question as to why now is different than then. as was mentioned, the debt ceiling has been raised 78 times, i think 49 times with republicans as president, the rest with democrats, so that is sort of a little hypocrisy there. in terms of the points that you just heard from pat toomey, we had very strong economic growth, closing in on full employment, after bill clinton raised taxes. we had strong growth in the last business cycle after a tax cut.

we had strong growth, very strong growth, and in fact, historically stronger labor marks in this cycle, where president biden has presided over tax increases at the top of the scale, to introduce more tax fairness and to pay for our spending while we lower the deficit. so the tax story really needs to be discussed in the context of how do you pay for your spending obligations, it is the very first question you asked me today, where does all of that debt come from? it comes from not raising the revenues that we need to meet our obligations. now, let's not forget, the debt ceiling is backwards-looking. it is paying for obligations that congress and presidents have voted for in the past, it is paying your credit card bill, it is paying your mortgage, and to not do so is of course reckless, feckless, and irresponsible. >> it is money already spent. it's not future spending. it is already that was already allocated. money already spent. >> correct. important point. >> how do we get back to a balanced budget? is it possible with this amount

of debt? and is it as simple as going to the very top of the tax scale, to the bezoss and the warren buffets, please tack me more, warren buffet, not bezos, and getting more money out of them? >> i think there is nothing perfectly simple in this space, but we've managed to pay for many of our spending programs in precisely that way. so the inflation reduction act actually lowers the deficit over ten years, and it does so by paying for investments in clean energy, by paying for lower health care costs, and by increasing taxes on those who have done particularly well, and have in many cases avoided paying their fair share. now, it is really instruct tive in this context to raise the proposal oust gate, to take out the funding of the inflation reduction act, a bill that more than pays for itself, to take away the funding in that bill,

to increase the irs's ability, the internal revenue service's ability, to collect taxes that are owed from the top 1%. to push back on tax evasion by the wealthy. the first thing house republicans oppose is get rid of that. the nonpartisan congressional budget office scored that as raising by $114 billion and goes in the opposite direction of their rhetoric. i was raised to look at what people do, not what they say and i think in this case, that really holds. >> i don't have time but i want to ask you about a consumption tax. republicans want to introduce that and get rid of income tax. >> let me say one sentence about that and i'm happy to come back and talk about it tomorrow. the consumption tax that they're talking about, a 23% tax on consumer spending, would raise taxes on the middle class while cutting taxes on the wealthy. it goes in exactly the opposite direction of president biden's fair tax initiatives. >> so that is because the wealthy pay for the same things as the middle class but they

have much more money so it is not as much of a hit? >> exactly. it is because middle class people consume a much larger share of their income than high income people, yes. >> jared, thank you so much. jared bernstein, we'll have you back tomorrow if you want to come back on. we will make a window for you, because i find these conversations fascinating. not dry at all. >> appreciate it my friend. thanks so much for coming on. >> sure. the other thing, we asked whether the white house's obfuscation over president biden's hands ling of classified documents would affect the 2024 ticket. today the white house says no. and nbc news reports the decision will not come until after the state of the union. joining me now is nbc news senior white house correspondent kelly o'donnell and "washington post" national reporter and msnbc political contributor, carol leonig. first the reporting from nbc news about when a 2024 announcement might come. >> certainly there is a lot of speculation about what the president might do, and at this point, there is an expectation that he is likely to run,

although no final decision made. and so then the big question is, when would that announcement come? and that is critical, because of all of the things that sets in motion. and what advisers are telling our team is that it would not happen before a state of the union message. and that is expected to now take place february 7th. and they want the president to have that night, which is one of the biggest sort of show places for any president, to appear as the president, and to not be seen as a candidate in that moment, to be able to lay out his vision for what he would do in terms of policy, and direction, in the months ahead. and to do that, free of the expectations of being a candidate. so start the clock ticking on february 8th. when would a final decision come? perhaps sometimes after that, when they're willing to acknowledge. that but ultimately the gears appear to be in motion around the president, from his family, to his top advisers, for him to seek a second term.

and of course, with the recent news of the documents being not where they should typically be housed under the classified protections of the national archives, or in a secure facility, does that cause a distraction? well, it is a political problem. and it is one where they are certainly having to deal with that. and today again, the president when he left for california, and his tour, upcoming tour of damage there from the storms, did not engage on questions. so part of the strategy, we have been seeing, is not to be talking about this, and to let the process play out. that will also be putting some of the pressure on, but advisers say that is not directly impact can the 2024 time frame. >> that's what they say right now. so carol, let's talk about what has been happening behind the scenes. you've got reporting on the initial interactions between the white house and the d.o.j. about these records. walk us through it. >> what's important to me about what we discovered yesterday, my colleagues and i at the "washington post," were able to

find some answers that the biden administration initially had not been willing to provide, that explain a little bit about why they didn't reveal the discovery of classified records first in biden's office, in dc, and then in his home in wilmington, in december. what we learned was that in the very earliest interactions with the department of justice, after notifying the national archives, and ultimately the department of justice within days, opening a criminal investigation, in those early days, the biden personal attorneys and the department of justice were basically in sync. and the department of justice, national security division, asked biden, the biden legal team, to please hold up, don't search any more places, don't review the records that you just found, at the penn biden station near union station in washington, d.c., we need to get a handle on the protocols and

the possible locations of other documents could be stored. this new detail that we reported exclusively yesterday, katy, is important, because everyone was sort of in this mystery land, where they were wondering why didn't the biden team begin looking for all of the other places that classified records could be stored after that first discovery on november 2nd? why did it take six weeks for the biden personal lawyers to actually go to his home in wilmington and begin looking through also records from his vice presidency that had been transferred there? now we know why. they were trying to defer to the department of justice. >> clearly interesting. carol, thank you very much. kelly o'donnell, thank you as well. and coming up, who is george santos? we've compiled a long but still not exhaustive list of all of the lies and fabrications santos is accused of spinning.

what has he claimed? an nbc news exclusive, what federal investigators say children were doing inside of a slaughterhouse in nebraska and how they fear those kids got there. more than a year after the fatal shooting of cinematographer halyna hutchins, authorities are pressing charges. what alec baldwin faces. ges. what alec baldwin faces. ♪♪ ♪ a bunch of dead guys made up work, way back when. ♪

♪ it's our turn now we'll make it up again. ♪ ♪ we'll build freelance teams with more agility. ♪ ♪ the old way of working is deader than me. ♪ ♪ we'll scale up, and we'll scale down ♪ ♪ before you're six feet underground. ♪ ♪ yes, this is how, this is how we work now. ♪ moderate-to-severe eczema. it doesn't care if you have a date, a day off, or a double shift. make your move and get out in front of eczema with steroid-free cibinqo. not an injection, cibinqo is a once-daily pill for adults who didn't respond to previous treatments. and it's proven to help provide clearer skin and relieve itch fast. cibinqo continuously treats eczema whether you're flaring or not. cibinqo can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. before and during treatment, your doctor should check for infections and do blood tests. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b or c, have flu-like symptoms, or are prone to infections.

do not take with medicines that prevent blood clots. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma, lung, skin and other cancers, serious heart-related events, and blood clots can happen. people 50 and older with heart disease risk factors have an increased risk of serious heart-related events or death with jak inhibitors. it's time to get out in front of eczema. ask your doctor about once-daily cibinqo.

breaking news out of new mexico, actor alec baldwin and hannah guiterrez reed will each be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter. in the shooting death of cinematographer halyna hutchins on a film set. nbc news legal analyst barbara mcquade says prosecutors will have to prove recklessness, that they were aware of a risk of harm, but that these two disregarded that risk. according to the santa fe county

district attorney assistant director david halls, has already signed a plea geelt for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon. he will serve a suspended sentence and six months of probation. in a recent statement, the special prosecutor appointed by the d.a. to the case says quote the evidence shows a pattern of disregard for safety on the set of "rust." if any one of these three people had done their job halyna hutchens would still be alive today. it is that simple. joining me from santa fe is nbc's vaughn hillyard. so vaughn, what could baldwin be facing in terms of a fine or prison time? >> reporter: you're looking on the one count of involuntary manslaughter, katy, up to 18 months in prison but if he were to be found guilty by this jury on that second count of involuntary manslaughter, which that count is enhanced by the fact that he was carrying that firearm and is the one who discharged it, it could be punishable by a mandatory minimum of five years prison

time here. we're talking about very serious charges that are going to be put forward here, before this jury. when you're looking at where the sides lie, a lot of lawsuits leading up to the district attorney and the special prosecutor deciding to bring these charges forward and the special prosecutor and the d.a. have suggested that they are prepared to make the case that he pulled, not only pulled the trigger in the role of the actor at that particular moment but in his role as being a producer of "rust" and the responsibility that he played, to what extent was he aware of the lack of gun safety training? to what extent was he aware of an email that an employee was sent before resigning being concerned about the lack of gun safety training on-site and look at some of the statements released here in the last few hours. one from the family, the director of photography, she was the cinematographer, she leaves behind her husband and son, in a statement, the family says our

independent investigation also supports changes are warranted. it is a comfort to the family that in new mexico no one is above the law and the court charges. the attorney for alec baldwin pushes back saying the decision dissports her death and represents a miscarriage of justice suggesting they would win. and another individual charged with involuntary manslaughter was hannah guiterrez reed, who put the bullets it is believed into the firearm that alec baldwin discharged and her lawyer says she did not commit involuntary manslaughter, these charges are the result of a very flawed investigation, and an inaccurate understanding of the full facts will go before a jury. >> vaughn hillyard, thank you very much. joining me now is ucla school of theater film and television prop department supervisor kevin williams. he has worked as an arm-er in his 22 years on the business. thanks for being here. you've done this job. you've been in this position. what do you think of these

charges against alec baldwin and hannah guiterrez reed? >> it is a somber agreement, i have to say that i do agree that a little bit of responsibility rests with every person who played a role in the chain of custody and the handling of that weapon on the set. >> how did the bullets get anywhere near a bullet or anywhere near a set? >> that again, that's an egregious error that was something that should not have happened. and ultimately should have been caught prior to the weapon being loaded and taken to set. but honestly, i can't think of a reason where you would want to have live rounds on the set with the circumstances that we've been hearing they had on this particular production. >> this doesn't happen often. it is a tragedy, obviously. >> right. >> walk me through what normally happens on the set, and how seriously the chain of custody for a weapon, because we see movies with lots of weapons, it's not like they're popping up in tons of movies, how is the

chain of custody handled normally, so that things like this don't happen often? >> generally, it is very tight, and that you have your arm-er, prop master maintaining control of that weapon, under lock and key at all times and the time it needs to be taken to set, it is taken over to the scene in question. the protocol was that reportedly we're hearing that the director, david halls, pulled the weapon from the truck, from the safe, without the supervision of han na, and unfortunately, that was something that probably shouldn't have happened. he declared it a gold gun. likely didn't check the weapon. normally when i'm training actors, i give them the agency, and i train them to teach, to treat every weapon that is in their hands whether it is a solid cast rubber prop or a live weapon that is capable of firing a real bullet, to treat it with the same respect as you would if

it could do lethal damage and creating good muscle memory of the prop that is in their hands. >> legal analyst barbara mcquade says industry standards prohibit an actor from pointing a gun at another person because of the rare and existence possibility that that gun may be loaded and that an accidental discharge might occur. so when we're seeing these scenes where it appears that guns are pointed directly at another actor, is that just a trick of the eye or a trick of the angle of the camera, normally? >> normally, yes, it is normally done by cheating camera angles and cheating the staging, in the event that you do need to have a weapon pointed more directly at the camera lens or the crew, you would engage ballistics shields around the team which are bullet proof clear shields that the camera can film through it. does not appear obviously that was something ha was set up. but that would be the normal circumstances that i would

expect to see, and that a safety officer on the set would be responsible for ensuring was on-site to use. >> is there a way to get rid of all bullets, period, on the sets, and to just use cti instead, or some other mechanism to make it appear that the firearm is being fired? >> the short answer is yes. the realistic answer is that i don't see blank rounds in real guns going away from film sets. again, if you go back to the metric of the fact that we've been producing films for well over 100 years at this point and real guns have been used on camera throughout the duration of all of that time that we've been producing, you can really count on one hand how many incidents where we've had any sort of fatalities or egregious errors such as this. so that being the metric, i don't see why there's a reason to eliminate it completely, but we're, but where you can, you should. go to cgi, and nonpractical

effects. but i think that -- >> so just one other question. alec baldwin says he was relying on the professionals around him. what do you think of that? i mean was he supposed to know that it was a live round himself? is it because he is a producer on the movie that he is getting this? or is it because he was the one that fired the gun? >> as i said earlier, i think that each one of them shares a little bit of legal responsibility for this. going through the process that i, when i'm dealing with actors is i teach them to handle the weapon, use the weapon they're handling and check the weapon and let the agency know to let us know if they see anything out of sorts. that being said, i don't want to speculate or kind of bolster his argument, but mr. baldwin is at a point in his career, where he had no incident, he has worked with professionals who have kept him and the rest of the team safe for decks so one might assume that he felt comfortable with that designation that it was a cold gun, to then proceed with that sequence as he did, which ultimately led to lalyna's

death. >> kevin, thank you very much for coming on. and helping us understand these charges. we appreciate your time. and we also have breaking news, more breaking news, one of the biggest breaches in supreme court history, and we don't know who did it. let's go to the investigation into the dobbs opinion leaker, the investigation has come up short. kelly o'donnell is back with me. so they searched, they interviewed a lot of people, why were they not able to find anyone? >> well, poring through documents that the court has just released, and the court has called this the grave assault on the judicial system, and a terrible betrayal, and what they have done is they have outlined the forensic steps they have taken and the headline is they have found no perpetrator and that is certainly a concern. now to take people back to what we are talking about, this was the dobbs case that overturned roe v. wade, and back in may, a

draft opinion that indicated that the court's conservative majority would overturn the right to abortion in this country, was leaked, was published by "politico," and what that was able to do, as many analysts have looked at it, was in effect, to lock in the conservative justices, between the time of the release and the time of the ultimate decision being announced publicly, could that have changed the course of history? would that have affected decisions that the justices could have made among themselves to negotiate or to work out perhaps a different outcome? that may not be known. because of this unusual case, something extraordinary in the history of the court, the court turned this over to the u.s. marshalls, they then worked with the chertoff group, the name michael chertoff, a former official in the bush white house as the head of homeland security. what they did is they looked at things like fingerprint analysis, digital analysis, of

the copy of the draft report that was ultimately published. they went and looked at hardware, like printers that belonged to court employees, to try to find out was there any evidence. no one confessed. no evidence surfaced that identified that court employee. and what this report goes on to say is that there are many kinds of steps for securing these highly sensitive documents that should take place. ways to put sort of an electronic key chain on important work that the court and the justices are doing, to prevent it going out the door. they also indicate that they don't have evidence of a hack, so someone getting into the computer system, from the outside. it also leaves open the possibility that there could have been an inadvertent misplacement, although that seems hard to imagine, but they acknowledge that could have happened. someone leaving a copy of the draft in a place where it could have been scooped up, taken out the door, and found its way into the hands of reporters.

so this is a who dunn it, many months now, after this very consequential ruling. so they provide a number of steps that they believe the court needs to take, to secure the work of the court going forward, and they say that the investigation will continue, but if the expectation was they would be able to name a culprit, that didn't happen today. katy? >> this leak, from all outside appearances, caused some tension in the supreme court, and potentially some tension between justices. there are big ideological divides right now on the supreme court, some pretty serious arguments that are coming in front of the supreme court, the dobbs case obviously being the biggest one of late. you've been watching and following the cases so far, and the oral arguments, what's your sense of how the justices are getting along? >> well, justices talk about the fact that they work very hard at having a collegial relationship.

they have lunch regularly. they work at having an ability to have cooperative ability to work together. even though there are clear ideological differences. and this is a conservative super majority. with six conservatives, they really have a way to shape how these cases turn out. i've observed a number of oral arguments, and there are moments where you can see a bit of back and forth between the justices, that plays out in the audio that the public can hear as well. where you can sense that there are tense moments and differing views. at the same time, this is considered such a deep betrayal of the court, that the justices wanted to know who was responsible. it appears the focus has been on court employees, and that would of course include clerks who have a high three of discretion and security within the court, and others who might have come in contact with the paperwork, and the group that looked into this investigation was scanning equipment, files, fingerprints,

all kinds of things, trying to trace where could these documents have passed through. and there is not a piece of evidence to a preponderance of evidence, a 51% level, that allows them to say they've identified the culprit. will this allow someone to come forward? will this allow a break in the case at some point now that this has happened? that could be a possibility. perhaps the justices themselves can try to exert additional pressure. we don't know. but the relationships on the court have been put under a great deal of scrutiny. we know the security of the court has been under a heightened sense in our larger political environment, where there have been threats to the court, security, hardened security outside the course has increased, and part of what has played out here is the trust in the court has also come into question in the minds of many americans, and this leak has been one piece of that, and today, no comforting answers after a very thorough investigation. >> and the liberal justices have

said that they are very concerned about the credibility of the court, because of the dobbs decision, and the appearance of politics being involved. just to repeat what kelly said, the marshal of the court did a pretty, it sounds, exhaustive investigation, interviews of almost 100 employees, 82 employees who had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion. they did forensic analysis and conducted multiple follow-up interviews, again, they employed michael chertoff, former homeland security director to help with the investigation, and still could not find a definitive leaker. joining me is senior legal correspondent laura jarrett. welcome to the team. first off. good to have you. what do you make of this? >> it is pretty incredible that one of the more unprecedented leaks that we have seen in recent memory certainly coming out of one of the branchs that is most shrouded in secrecy, ends with sort of an

unprecedented ending of a headline of no culprit. it's pretty incredible that they did an exhaustive forensic search, it appears they went back and tried to figure out who was able to print the opinion, who had their hands on the opinion, and they truly, it seems like, after all of this time, cannot seem to pinpoint anyone. now, i should point out, as kelly did, there is an investigation, the investigation does appear to not be at a complete ending, it appears that there could be some follow-up interviews, there could be some more leads to track down, but it has been months, as we recall, this opinion leaked back in may and it was nearly identical to the opinion that ends up being actually issued by the court some months later so you might say kudos to "politico" for protecting their sources so well to figure out, you know, a way to do this, because the court, using every available opportunity and every available mechanism simply has not been able to get to the bottom of what happened here. and shy point out, this has had

a real effect on the court and sort of the institution itself, it is a place that is, you know, so held in regard, by its ability to insulate its members and its clerks are sort of under the understanding that anything, anything close to this is just a death knell to their careers and the trust that happens in that building. to not be able to have an answer will be disconcerting i'm sure to everyone there for sure. >> again, there is what the statement from the court reads, to the extent that the additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, the investigators will pursue them. laura, kelly went through this but i would like to get your take on it, it seems they were focused mostly on the clerks, the staff and the employees and not the justices themselves. any talk about how much focus was put on the individual justices in regards to this leak? >> yes, it is interesting, they're sort of silent on that. i think some 82 different people had access to it, which if you

think about it, it is quite a lot, for something that is so consequential, but as i said, for years, this went on with no leaks at all, and so i think one of the issues here is probably a tightening and a hardening, if you will, of the way that these opinions get distributed, now in the future, i think this has been sort of a cautionary lesson for everyone there, and i can imagine there will be a series of different protocols put in place, and certainly the former homeland security secretary actually suggests that they do that. >> laura jarrett, kelly o'donnell, thank you very much for getting plugged in so quickly to go over this breaking news. we appreciate it. and laura, again, welcome to the team. coming up more tiktok fans are coming up across the country over security concerns. what are the risks really? we will ask a former top cybersecurity official in the u.s. chris krebs is here, don't go anywhere. and who is george santos? we have a running list of who he says he is. he is

is that? oh wow! but we got to sell our houses! well, almost perfect. don't worry. sell with confidence to opendoor. yes! -done. request a cash offer at opendoor.com to you, it may just be an elevator. here goes nothing. but for a young homeowner becoming their parents, it's a learning opportunity. come on in. [ chuckles ] the more, the merrier. paris, huh? bonjour! we got any out-of-towners in the elevator? tom. it is not easy. 10th floor, huh? must be a heck of a view. okay, see how everyone else is facing this way? progressive can't save you from becoming your parents, but we can save you money when you bundle home and auto with us. okay, that was terrible. okay, let's hang back. we're gonna try that again. (woman 1) i just switched to verizon business unlimited. it's just right for my little business. let's hang back. unlimited premium data. unlimited hotspot data. (woman 2) you know it's from the most reliable 5g network in america? (vo) when it comes to your business, not all bars are created equal. so switch to verizon business unlimited today.

who exactly is george santos. today there is another allegation, and another denial. this one, that he used to be be a drag queen in brazil. a person who called herself the ru paul of brazil says she used to mentor george santos. santos that's categorically false and the media continues to make outrageous claims about his life. but it is santos who is making a lot of these claims, about his resume, "the new york times" was the first to figure out santos lied about his high school and where he went to college, a lie that he himself fleshed out to the nassau county gop. >> he told me, i remember specifically, i'm into sports a little bit, and he was a star on the volleyball team and they won the league championship. what can i tell you? >> about his career history, he said he worked for goldman sachs

and citi bank. they say no, they have no record of him. in reality, santos admitted he worked at a place called harbor city, a financial firm that the securities and exchange commission accused of being a ponzi scheme that stole $17 million from investors. about his finances, he claims that his 2022 financial disclosure, he owned a million dollar apartment in rio de janiero. and also that he had a net worth as high as $11 million. with a $750,000 salary. and more than a million in dividends from a company that has no public website or linkedin page. on the campaign trail, he claimed he was a landlord, managing a portfolio of 13 properties, he even complained on twitter that pandemic policies meant he wasn't making rent on those properties. "the new york times" found no evidence of those buildings. confronted with that reporting, santos eventually admitted he doesn't own any properties.

the podcast, c-pac, he claimed to be a part of the development of carbon capture technology, reporters have yet to find evidence of that. what journalists have found evidence of though, is a claim that santos ran a pet rescue, long island patch, a local news organization first spoke to a and a half veteran who accused santos of stealing $3,000 in donations meant to pay to treat his sick service dog. but when the veteran went looking for the money, he says santos disappeared. a few months later, his dog died. here is what the veteran, richard, told nbc news. >> i was livid, i realized this guy is now a serving congressman. he doesn't deserve that job. it's horrendous that he could lie and steal and cheat his way through life, and now he's somebody that we're supposed to trust. it's just disgusting. horrible. he should be ashamed of himself, but he doesn't have shame. he's a psycho path.

>> on twitter, santos did not directly deny that allegation, and instead, he called it shocking and insane. what others are calling shocking and insane are still more claims that santos made while running for office. these ones about two of the worst moments in our history. >> i am the grandchild of holocaust survivors, and the son of a 9/11 survivor. >> santos has said his mother was in the world trade center on 9/11. but nbc news has reviewed her immigration records that show she was still in brazil. as for the holocaust claim, when confronted with it, santos told reporters he never claimed to be jewish. in fact, it is hard to figure out anything concrete about his family. when asked by a local news host how he likes to spend time with him, santos appears to repeat his opponent nearly word for word. >> name one of your favorite

family traditions? >> oh, my goodness. absolutely new years eve, my nephews and i and my brother and social get together in our sweats and watch a stupid holiday movie, some sort of stupid comical holiday movie and eat the food we shouldn't eat all year round. it begins with delicatessen and haaggen-dazs, always a staple and popcorn as well. >> mr. santos, your favorite family tradition. our favorite family tradition, just family time, it doesn't matter if it is a tuesday night or a sunday night, or if it's christmas, every moment we can get together, that's kind of a downtime, it's sweat pants, pints of haaggen-dazs all over the place. >> sweat pants and pints of haaggen-dazs. even the clothing doesn't appear to be him a roommate who lived with santos in queens, saying the burberry scarf santos won to the stop the steal rally is the roommate's. that roommate told a reporter

from long island patch, that he stole an armanit t-shirt from him. here is what we do know. officials in brazil say he was charged with fraud in 2008 and stole a checkbook and spending almost $800. and george santos is only part of his name according to s.e.c. filings, and a part that until recently he didn't appear to be using, and instead going by his two middle names. santos for his part says he has made mistakes and that he's done nothing unethical. coming up, what is so dangerous about tiktok that it is facing bans in at least a dozen u.s. states?

living with metastatic breast cancer means i cherish my memories. but i don't just look back on them, i look forward to the chance to make new ones every day with verzenio. verzenio is proven to help you live significantly longer when taken with fulvestrant. verzenio + fulvestrant is for hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after hormone therapy. diarrhea is common, may be severe, or cause dehydration or infection. at the first sign, call your doctor, start an antidiarrheal, and drink fluids. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor about any fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. life-threatening lung inflammation can occur. tell your doctor about any new or worsening trouble breathing, cough, or chest pain. serious liver problems can happen. symptoms include fatigue, appetite loss, stomach pain,

and bleeding or bruising. blood clots that can lead to death have occurred. tell your doctor if you have pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain and rapid breathing or heart rate or if you are nursing, pregnant, or plan to be. i'm making future memories every day with verzenio. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio. now is the european union that is going after tiktok. this afternoon, a top eu official warned tiktok ceo to change the company's content and data policies, citing safety concerns, saying tiktok does not get in line with new eu legislation, it could face a ban across europe. tiktok is already banned on u.s. government devices, and now in parts of the u.s., more than two dozen states have issued bans or restrictions out of national security fears. also college campuses are banning tiktok on their wi-fi, some of them at least. joining me now is chris krebs, a partner at the krebs stamos group, the first director of the

cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency during the trump administration. chris, good to see you. how much of a threat, a national security threat, is tiktok really? >> well, unfortunately, it's not just one threat. there are four risks associated generally with tiktok. first is this broader content issue, the ease with which people can access dangerous harmful content in a matter of seconds. the second is the data security issues associated with the app on the device, and perhaps providing access to a third party, to get on to the device and manage, monitor browsing habits. the third is actually the locations. it's a user privacy issue of where the device is, so you can potentially track, track whoever is using tiktok, and then the fourth is this broader disinformation narrative shaping, and you know, suppressing bad information, and elevating other information as

there could be in line with the chinese communist party. and you know, like i said, it's a broad set of issues. and like you're seeing with the eu, it's not just data, it's privacy, it's content moderation, it's a whole wide range of issues, and i personally think that the eu is the biggest risk right now for tiktok operations globally. >> because the eu has more authority than the u.s. does or are they more in line? >> they actually, they have already they already have legislation and regulations in place, or in the immediate of f'ing. for one, you have the general data protection protection where the irish data protection commission has been investigating tiktok for third party access, meaning access from china to an eu user, since 2021, and that has been in place for years and the irish have used that, that regulation, that investigative tool for a number of other, you know, tech companies, including u.s., like microsoft and facebook. the second is the digital

services act which was recently passed and go es into effect september 1st and that is much more on content regulation, so when you talk about the meeting that the eu executive committee had on tuesday, one of the officials came out and said hey, if the dsa, the digital services act, was in place right now, a ban of tiktok would be on the table due to compliance shortfalls. so again, that is the immediate act. and whether there's legislation introduced, including the anti-social ccp act, introduced by rubio, gallagher, and murphy, in the last congress, whether that was in place, it would still take time to implement. i think tiktok's biggest risk right now is the eu. >> so -- so tiktok changes the algorithm, and whatever the privacy, the algorithm is, and if they change it to get in line with the eu, account eu trust it is in line? is it a way to double check to

make sure everything is above board? >> they got a range of issues i think they're going to have to manage and i think it all starts at the top and it begins with byte dance, the parent holding company, their ownership of tiktok. and so i assume whether it is at tiktok headquarters or the main investors in tiktok which includes a number of u.s. private equity and institutional investors, are taking a hard look at what a potential tiktok exit strategy might be so they can make something out of this, rather than lose the market right now, because as i see it, tiktok stands a big risk of getting the huawei treatment that we saw in the last administration, and huawei is a chinese telecommunications firm that was limited from access to the u.s. market due to national security concerns, and they have taken a real global market hit, and revenue hit as a result. >> tiktok, unlike huawei though, which was a cellular communications firm, right, tiktok is a social media company that is wildly popular here in the u.s., and around the world as well.

wildly popular. and if you talk to people who use it, especially the younger generation, i think most people, they'll say what, they have all of our information anyway, i've already give it to this firm and that firm, i assume that everyone knows where i am at all times. there is locations services on my iphone that is following me around. what is the big deal? >> well, the difference here again is that ownership, and the government structure, where there are regulations and laws in place in china that require access to data, that's been aggregated by social media platforms, and byte dance is a chinese company with u.s. investment, but a chinese company, and tiktok is, due to those regulations, subject to their whims. but again, you broad continue back out, and you look at the risks here, and one of the biggest political challenges i see, in the u.s. capitol, is going to be the political liability of banning tiktok, target demographics for the next

several years elections are all the primary tiktok users right now. >> chris krebs, narrowing it right there. thanks for coming on. gould to see you as always. that is going to do it for me today. hallie jackson picks up our coverage next. today hallie jackson picks up our coverage next. ier looks like? ♪ ♪ with a little help from cvs... ...you can support your nutrition, sleep, immune system, energy...even skin. and before you know it, healthier can look a lot like...you. ♪ ♪ cvs. healthier happens together. my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... the tightness, stinging... the pain. emerge tremfyant®. with tremfya®, most people saw 90% clearer skin at 16 weeks. the majority of people saw 90% clearer skin even at 5 years. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections

and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. emerge tremfyant®. with tremfya®... ask your doctor about tremfya® today. y'all wayfair has just what you need for your home. ask your doctor about is that glitter? this table is on its last leg. y'all need this. you're kelly clarkson! a whole new look for a whole lot less. ahhh! -you're kelly clarkson! i am... and you need this. i love it! are we in a wayfair commercial? maybe. personal sauna. ok i need that. ahhhhh! ♪ wayfair, you've got just what i need ♪ just look around. this digital age we're living in, it's pretty unbelievable. problem is, not everyone's fully living in it. nobody should have to take a class or fill out a medical form on public wifi with a screen the size of your hand. home internet shouldn't be a luxury.

everyone should have it and now a lot more people can. so let's go. the digital age is waiting. a lot of developments as we're coming on the air from washington. the commander in chief turned consoler in chief. a new interview here