i remember. and one of jill's favorite people in the whole world and mine, i always introduce her as she is -- mark kelly is her husband. ladies and gentlemen, gabby giffords. she has more courage than most people i have ever known. i would be honored to bestow the presidential medal of freedom on gabby, not only for her courage and inflict, to help carry this movement. she's not stopping now. gabby, i love you. you're wonderful. and congresswoman larson, thanks for the passport into your district. you have never given up. you've never given up either and to the state and local leaders, the mayor and others, the dedication to this vital issue

is critical. it really is. look, you know, to the survivors and families, jill and i, my wife jill is not here today with me. she is in delaware right now. she had to go back up. jill and i have gotten to know many of you over the years. some of us have become friends for a long time. we've kept in touch. mark, it's good to see you again and your family, and the losses may be different, circumstances, but we've shared before us something that's helped our family. when my wife and daughter were killed in a tractor-trailer struck them, just after i got elected, my two boys weren't expected to live, and then later when my son beau, who was the attorney general and volunteered to spend a year in iraq died, stage 4, glioblastoma. my daughter ashley taped a message to the mirror, the way everything gets to me through my wife and daughter now is they know i have to shave in the

morning, so they'll tape on the mirror, for real. so i see it when i'm shaving. one day she left me a quote from e manual cant who wrote that finding happiness and peace of mind when it seems impossible can be done. he said, you need something to do, someone to love, and something to hope for. something to do was to fulfill the promise i made to my son beau and my family and your families, and you have made too, that i would not retreat from public life in the sadness that i felt afterwards. that i'd stay engaged to solve problems. someone to love, my family, my kids, my grand kids, and something to hope for, all of you, survivors and advocates of real movement with something to hope for. something to hope for. that your collective trauma and injuries are not going to be in

vain, that your friend, your family member, your loved one, did not die in vain, that by acting in their memory, you can prevent the next tragedy, you can save lives. you can save families in the process. you can continue to save the process. i mean that. look, folks, a year ago, the conventional wisdom was we would never get any republicans to support gun legislation period. that was the conventional wisdom. and all the usual obstacles have blocked us once again, but didn't happen. instead i signed into law the bipartisan safer community act, which you have referenced several times today, which many have described -- [ applause ] -- which many have described as the most significant gun safety law in 30 years, and it is. but for me, and most of you, here's what it really is, it's

an important first step [ applause ]. i know it feels like it isn't enough when you turn on the news and see another tragedy at a school, a grocery store, a parade or a place in america. honestly i feel like that as well. facts give us reason to hope, though. so far this year, murder is down in many major cities across the country. there's far too much gun violence, but that's why the summit is so important. when chris asked me to be here today, with the following message, one year ago, we did come together. we did hear the call for too many families, every one of those families, all the places i mentioned, i met with every single family. and you know what they say? almost the same phrase, dick, do something. do something. and then the response usually was, my prayers are with you. your prayers are fine. they're important, it doesn't happen again, but it's not going to stop it. you have to take action, have tow move.

have to do something, and so what happened? we began to continue to fight again because for a while there, there were only about two dozen of us in the congress or the vice president or when i was president who thought anything could be done. we did pass the most meaningful gun safety law in 30 years. we did overcome an unrelenting opposition of the gun lobby, gun manufacturers, and so many politicians who hide behind the belief that they'll never have to pay a price for their inaction. when they oppose common sense gun legislation, and we beat them. we beat them. [ cheers and applause ] and we did it through a bipartisan effort that included a majority of responsible gun owners. because whether you're democrats or republicans, we all want families to be safe. we all want to drop them off at the house of worship, mall, movie, school door without worrying that's the last time we're ever going to see them.

we all want our kids to have the freedom to learn, to read and write, instead of learning how to duck and cover in a classroom, and above all, we all agree, we are not finished. we are not finished. we are not finished. look, i know you've had a full day of getting into details of the law, but folks listening at home, here's a quick summary of what the law is doing. it's already allowing the justice department through the fbi to run enhanced background checks on young people under 21 trying to buy a firearm. this legislation has already provided more than $230 million for states to expand the use of tools like the red flag laws, as my son was the first to enforce when he was attorney general, which says that a court has the right to temporarily remove a firearm where there's danger to themselves or others. more people die from gun violence as a consequence of

suicide than anything else that happens in the nation. suicide. this legislation already delivered more than $1.5 billion to states and communities to make schools safer, improve access to mental health services and help young people deal with the grief and trauma resulting from gun violence. post-traumatic stress syndrome. it includes an additional 14,000 mental health professionals hired and trained to work at our schools. the law helps prevent domestic abusers from purchasing guns. i'm the guy who wrote the violence against women act. i proposed a long time ago. [ applause ] i didn't say it for that reason, but i cared deeply about it, because the ultimate abuse, the abuse of power, my dad used to say the single worst abuse of all is the abuse of power. we fought like hell to close the so-called boyfriend loophole, if in fact, you had a stay away

order issued against a man or a woman because of your boyfriend or girlfriend, and they weren't your spouse, then guess what, they decided not to impose this limitation on being able to own a weapon. so we finally can say that those convicted of domestic violence abuse against their boyfriend or girlfriend cannot buy a firearm period. [ cheers and applause ] by the way, it's already saving lives. there are fewer deaths occurring in that area. for the first time ever, we explicitly made gun trafficking a federal crime. what the hell, it wasn't already? no, i'm serious, think about it. you go home and tell your mother, father, brother, sister, aunt or uncle. gun trafficking is now a crime. it wasn't a crime. we did the same thing for straw purchases. that's when the middleman who can pass a background check,

buys a gun, uses it for someone who can't pass a background check, it's now a federal crime if you do that, and finally, we finally clarified who needs to register as a federal licensed gun dealer, because a federally licensed gun dealer is required by law to run bkd background checks on those he's selling a weapon to. philadelphia, new york, areas i know well, like up here, you would see a truck pull up, pull to the curb, and selling weapons, selling guns, selling ar-15s. selling weapons. well, guess what, you do that now, you go to jail. >> there's so much more, the bottom line, if the law had been in place a year ago, lives would have been saved. and it's in place now, and it is saving lives today. we got it done because of you, not a joke. you all think we're being nice

to you. [ laughter ] you're tough. thank god. but i really mean it's because of you. moms demand action, big deal. [ cheering and applause ] >> i really mean it. because what did you do, and young people coming up. people who you grew up with, who didn't think this was real, the suburbanite republican man or woman, or democrat, not just republican. thinks, everything is fine, all of a sudden they see someone of your caliber, someone of your commitment walking town the street saying we got to do something. it matters. it matters. it matters. and you can feel it. you can taste it, what you're doing. and here's the deal. you're changing the culture, proving we can do more than just thoughts and prayers. you're changing our politics, you're registering voters,

recruiting candidates, getting them elected. you've proven you're powerful and relentless. it matters. it matters. they know you're not going away. as i just said when i signed the law, a call to action to do more because i don't see that this was enough. neither do you. really important. really, if nothing else happened, we have changed things for the better. so i set out to take as much executive action. that's a fancy word as saying what can i do as president on my own. executive action that made it illegal to manufacture so-called ghost guns. i just signed that. it's been challenged in court, but so far, it matters. to allow anyone to assemble a gun at home, bought from several different places in as little as 30 minutes, come on. these weapons don't have serial numbers, that's why they like to

buy them. so criminals can use them to commit crimes and not leave behind a registration of who owned the weapon. made it harder for people to buy stabilized braces, put a pistol on a brace, it turns into a gun. makes them more, you can have a higher caliber bullet coming out of that gun. it's essentially turning it into a short barrel rifle. which has been a weapon of choice by a number of mass shooters. making it easier to buy gun locks and other safe storage, gun storage, if any one of you drove up to the parking lot here today, got out of your car and left a key in your car, and a kid comes along and is 13, 14 years old, gets in your car, takes in a joyride and kills someone, guess what, you're liable. why should that not be the case, you know, lock up your weapons. why should that not be the case. why is that not required? and most gun owners agree with

me. we also established a zero tolerance policy for rogue gun dealers who willfully violate the law. now instead of a slap on the wrist, their license is revoked. you had a lot of gun dealers involved in shady action. they used to get a fine. now they lose their license to sell. we established a track force to track down on gun trafficking across state lines, including guns brought from georgia, south carolina, washington, philadelphia, and new york, right here to hartford. all told, we have taken more executive action to reduce gun violence than any of my predecessors, probably than all of my predecessors. they're being challenged in court, but so far so good, and the budget i submitted to congress would help reduce crime by increasing funding to go after gun traffickers, and by the way, you know what i get when we're talking about the fentanyl at the border and all that, i speak to the president

of mexico, will you stop sending guns to us. we are sending dangerous weapons, particularly assault weapons, to mexico. to mexico. they're asking us, please stop it. cut it off at the border. what in god's name are we becoming if we don't do this. look, ladies and gentlemen, for those who say they're concerned about crime you can't deal with crime without dealing with gun violence. it's a simple proposition. remember, for a long time in america car accidents were the leading killer of children. this was mentioned earlier. then in 2020, guns became the number one killer of children in america. guns. more than car accidents, more than cancer. let me say that again. we can't let that just become

another statistic. guns, the number one killer of children in the united states of america? folks, it's time once again that we banned ar-15 rifles. high capacity magazines. they're not only a weapon of war, they're the single biggest driver of profits for the gun industry. that's why they're selling them. profit, profit, profit, the single biggest. as i said, we did it once before in '94, and ten years after that, the ban of mass shootings was down significantly, the number of mass shootings. when the ban expired, mass shootings, tripled, that let the ban on assault weapons, high capacity magazines come back into vogue. look, i find it outrageous that

of all the industries in america, and by the way, i have been doing this a long time. i know i don't look that old, i know. i'm a little under 103. but all kidding aside, i thought, i mean, i'm going to say something outrageous, i was a pretty powerful senator. i managed some of the biggest committees, judiciary, foreign policy senator, but i didn't know ten years ago, i didn't know that the gun manufacturers were immune from liability. i don't know that. gun manufacturers. just imagine how many more people would be dead if the tobacco industry was immune from liability. you couldn't sue the tobacco industry. i'm being deadly earnest. think about the number of people who would be dead today that are alive because we could sue them,

and they paid billions of dollars for the damage they were doing. well, we need to end immunity for gun manufacturers. got to hold them accountable. it's time we established universal background checks and safe storage for firearms. just remember, the united states of america has the finest fighting force in the history of the world. we provide these same service members with the most lethal weapons on earth. but we also require and received significant training before they're allowed to use them. we require extensive background checks and mental health assessment on them before they were allowed to use them. we require them to lock them up and store the weapons responsibly or they're court martialed. these are common sense requirements all gun owners should follow. all gun owners should have the

same requirements held to him or her. we know what to do. congress needs to act. let me be clear about something, if this congress refuses to act, we need a new congress. [ cheers and applause ] and we need states to act as well. not every state has a governor as competent as governor lamont, and i mean that, but they can do a lot more. look what the gov has done here in this state. less than two weeks ago here in connecticut, governor lamont signed a bipartisan legislation more than a dozen measures from prohibiting open carry and strengthening the ban on assault weapons and ghost guns. illinois, washington state passed assault weapons bans this year. bringing the total to ten states in the district of columbia. michigan, minnesota, colorado, vermont, establishing or strengthening the red flag laws.

now, 21 states plus the district of columbia have red flag laws in effect. since 2021, seven states have passed an increase in accountability for the gun industry. i said at the beginning, they've turned their pain into purpose. you turned your cause into reality. i believe we reached a tipping point in this nation. i really do. i swear to god. people in this room are a big reason why we reached the tipping point. as senator murphy says, success begets success. but the converse is also failure begets failure. that's why jill and i, kamala, the entire administration are more determined than ever that you should be successful as well. let me close with this, i know many people here who have been impacted by gun violence, lost someone they loved, fought so hard for so many years.

a lot of you are tired. you're tired. i get it. try being 110 and doing it again. all kidding aside, a lot of people are frustrated. my mother, god love her, all 5'1", she looked at me and said joey, never bow. never bend, never yield. never kneel. we never will on this issue. never, never, never, never, never. folks, are we ever going to make progress we need to make, i'm here to tell you we cannot give up. we will not get there, i still remember the people i met with in newtown and orlando and las vegas and pittsburgh and charleston, parkland, el paso, uvalde, buffalo, monterey park and so many other places that never make the headlines. i've never forgotten them.

and i never will forget them. and i'll never stop fighting for them. i promise you. and i believe this is true, that everyone in this room, you'll never stop fighting for them as well. we will ban assault weapons in this country. we will ban multiround magazines. we will hold gun makers liable. we will beat the gun industry. we will beat big money that sits behind them and the politicians who refuse to stand up and act, it won't be easy. i have no illusions how fiercely they'll fight back, i also have no illusions about the people in this room. look at what you've already done here in connecticut and around the country. look at the movement you've built. look at the people you've helped elect. look at the progress you've made in state houses. look at all the mothers organizing all across the country. listen to the young people who have spoken out here today. they're speaking for a whole generation, and they will not be ignored. they will not be shunned.

they will not be silent. in this moment, in this moment, we have to remember, i got to know him, nelson mandela when i tried to get to south africa to meet him. and he came back and he met me when he was finally freed, he met me at the white house. and he looked at me, and i swear to god, it wasn't unique to me, i'm sure, he said, it always seems impossible until it gets done. there's nothing beyond our capacity. that's the power of memory of your loved one. that's the power of this moment. that's the power of america. our lives and the lives of our nation find purpose, something to do, someone to love. something to hope for. we have to just keep going and keep the faith. every time i walked to my grandpa's house, joey, keep the faith, my grandfather would yell, no, joey, spread it. remember who we are, we're the

united states of america, and there's nothing beyond our capacity when we do it together. god bless you all and may god protect our troops. we can get this done. thank you, thank you, thank you. i mean it. thank you. [ cheering and applause ] now as some of you now, i usually come down and say hi to all of you, they tell me there's a storm coming in. is that right? is that still the deal? if that's the truth, now don't make a lie. that scene in john wayne movie, don't make me a dog-faced lying pony soldier. all right, well, i tell you what, here's what i'm going to do, i'm going to ask the white house photographer to come up, and i'm going to stand, i usually shake everybody's hand, but i'm going to stand in front of each section, no, i really mean it, and if you can see the camera, they can see you, and it's the least consequential part of this whole meeting for you, i promise. all right.

god save the queen, man. queen,. ♪♪ good to be with you. i'm katy tur. president joe biden is in connecticut today speaking at the national safer communities summit out there, and he's advocating stricter gun laws. he's marking one year since he signed the bipartisan safer communities act, which in the aftermath of uvalde enhanced background checks for buyers under 21, provided $750 million for red flag laws, and made it harder for domestic abusers to possess guns, which he just mentioned right there. he says has led to fewer deaths in domestic situations. it was at the time that legislation the most significant action on guns in three decades. but now president biden says he wants to do more. it was just the beginning, he said a moment ago. joining me from west hartford,

connecticut, is nbc news correspondent julie tsirkin. so he's doing this in tandem with senator chris murphy out there in connecticut, who you cover closely, and who obviously finds this issue very close to him, given what happened in sandy hook and connecticut. president biden made a point to say that this was just the beginning. the legislation he passed last year, it was just the beginning. what did he say, julie, today, about what the next possible steps are? >> reporter: yeah, he said three times forcefully, we are not finished. we are not finished. we are not finished, and that, he said, is what everyone in this group can agree on, this audience, of course, full of gun violence survivors, of parents of sandy hook students who were murdered in that massacre ten years ago, close to where the president addressed this group moments ago. and touted the accomplishments of the bill he just laid out. he called on congress to do more, specifically when it comes

to universal background checks, to banning assault weapons. of course the votes right now as it stands are not there in congress. he told the room of supporters, voters if they're not happy with this congress, perhaps it's time to get a new one, riling up the crowd ahead of 2024 in what is sure to be a big focus, not just voters looking to vote congress and senators but also to elect a president, of course he's seeking another term, and he touted the accomplishments he signed into law, and also said that the administration is willing to do more on executive action. he actually made a joke that they are going to be sued but the courts are not doing anything yet to stop them from issuing those executive actions, to increase background checks, for example, the justice department set any month now really to define what exactly a licensed firearms dealer is. we heard before the president took the stage from gun violence providers themselves, from students from parkland, for example, who introduced the president as the biggest champion on gun violence

prevention as well as senator chris murphy who we heard from just before who said that the president has been working on this issue before anyone else has. he's touted what biden has done as senator in the '90s and early 2000s on this issue as well. look, the tone here from having been in this room all day before the president took the stage has been one of positivity. i talked to some lawmakers who were here, not only the connecticut lawmakers but also lucy macbeth from georgia, for example, who was in room. her son lost his life due to being shot by a gun, and she's very passionate on this issue of course, and he praised everyone in attendance. he said they are the champions on this issue. there is more they can do. we're looking forward to see what if anything will come down the pike, not only from the biden administration in terms of executive orders, but if congress can come together and work across the aisle and try and get more done. as i spoke to senator cornyn, after the uvalde shooting, he

told me yesterday as of right now they are focused on fully implementing the law and making sure all states and local communities know all of the resources available to them. >> cornyn got condemned by the texas gop for being part of that legislation. senator julie tsirkin, i just gave you a promotion, my friend, thank you so much for joining us. moving to our other top story of the day. how do you prosecute a case that relies on evidence that isn't technically supposed to be seen? at the heart of donald trump's alleged wrong doing is classified intelligence. national security secrets that are allegedly so sensitive that mishandling them could endanger us all. given that, how does the government prove its case? how does jack smith show a jury that donald trump broke the law? not only that, how does donald trump's legal team defend him without seeing what the government has on him? good news for all of us is that

even though the particulars of this case are unique, a case regarding the unlawful handling and dissemination of state secrets is not. there are steps to take. ones that trump's team have already informed judge aileen cannon that they have initiated. this case is in many ways, if not most ways, a whole new ball game. sensitivities, legal and political, the department of justice has never really dealt with before. we've never prosecuted a former president, let alone one who was running again. especially not one who is intentionally trying to slander the whole process, saying it's a witch hunt and political persecution. we have asked on this show, whether the particular politics of this moment weigh on jack smith's mind, and on tuesday, in the courtroom, in request jack smith did not make to the judge,

it seems like we got the beginning of an answer. joining me now former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official, chuck rosenberg. thank you very much for being with us. i have a ton of questions to ask you. the first one is about the steps being taken right now to deal with classified documents. trump's team according to judge aileen cannon that issued a directorive saying by tuesday they have to do this, has applied to the doj to get clearance, classified intelligence clearance. how does that work? what is the process? >> right. well, first of all, it's a necessary step, katy, because the defense team needs to review the documents that the government has and in order to do that, they're going to need a top secret security clearances, so the process would be that they apply to the intelligence community, to the fbi, to whoever holds the equities here. they get a background investigation, and ultimately, i imagine, they get cleared and they get access to the documents.

that's completely appropriate. you raised a second issue just a moment ago. what do you do about showing these documents in a public forum and to the jury, there are separate steps for that, but step one is for the defense team to get cleared so they have access to the information that the government intends to rely on at trial. >> so judge cannon made the first deadline next tuesday. how long will it take from that deadline? i know they've already done it, but how long should it take to get these lawyers security clearance? >> yeah, i mean, if you were the average applicant for a job in the intelligence community, katy, months and months and months. here, i think it will be expedited. they can do it in a matter of weeks, and i hope they do. >> what about judge aileen cannon herself making tuesday the deadline? what does that say to you? >> well, it's a signal but a faint one, katy, i wouldn't read too much into it. i'm glad she's kicked off the process but this piece of it is inevitable. it has to happen. defense attorneys have to have access or they can't defend their client, and that would be

unjust, and so logical first step necessary first step, but not a momentous first step. >> we have talked a lot about judge cannon. people are worried about her given her rulings regarding issues a special master in this case early on that was overturned by the 11th circuit roundly. are you worried about her as a judge in this case? >> i have some pause but it's not because i believe she's unprincipled, katy, i don't believe she's unprincipled, she's relatively new at this. my understanding is she's only tried as a federal judge a small handful of relatively simple cases. that's not her fault. everyone starts somewhere. she doesn't have a ton of trial experience either as an assistant u.s. attorney. she was on the appellate side. that's where they put all the smart people. that's why i was never an appellate attorney. but she doesn't have a ton of experience. she doesn't have a ton of data points. the best judges like the best airline pilots and best dentists have a lot of data points. and so i'm more worried about her lack of experience and her

lack of experience in national security cases than i am about any notion that she's unprincipled or is in the tank for one side or the other. i don't believe that part is true. >> the lack of experience here, if she issues a ruling that isn't right, that can't be defended or isn't according to the letter of the law, can that get kicked up, individual rulings within that case, can that get kicked up to the 11th circuit? >> here's a messy answer. yes and no. it depends on the ruling. judges make lots of rulings prior to trial. not every one of them is appealable. there are other rulings, were she to suppress evidence or make an adverse finding on the attorney/client privilege, and precluding the government from calling mr. trump, if the judge were to lose that motion before the trial, they could take an appeal. you can't appeal everything and

that makes sense, if you could appeal everything all the time, you would almost never have a path to trial. yes and no. >> donald trump's team is going to try to stop evan corcoran from appearing at the trial and take his notes out of evidence. they want it not to be admissible. are there scenarios where attorney/client privilege is pierced only to not be allowed in trial, does that happen often? >> well, first, the piercing of attorney/client privilege doesn't happen often and it certainly doesn't happen often in criminal trials. like you said earlier, much of this is unprecedented, but we do have case law around attorney/client privilege and the crime fraud exception, which is applicable here. my guess is that the first ruling on the crime fraud exception issued by a federal district court judge in the district of columbia will hold up and that the government will be able to introduce this evidence at trial. that might be the basis for the thing we discussed a moment ago, an interlocutory appeal, an

appeal brought by the government prior to trial challenging the ruling of a judge with which it disagrees. >> let me ask you about the jury, and we touched on this a moment ago. the lawyers are going to have security clearance. does the jury get security clearance? are their scenarios where they have their background checks done by the government, and they're able to see the documents in any given case? >> that would be unusual, atypical. no. there's a different mechanism, and it's important for people to understand, roughly a half century ago, congress passed something called the classified information procedures act. it's a method to redact classified information so you can put it into a public forum. you can offer institutions, rather than, let's say, hypothetically specifying a particular country mentioned in a classified document, you refer to it as an asian country or a european country or middle east country. you find a substitution.

that's the way you handle it. i'll make another point, if i may, the 31 documents that the government used in this case to charge unlawful retention would have been discussed in advance with members of the intelligence community. in other words, the nsa, the cia, the national geospatial agency, those agencies that have equities in these documents were not surprised to see their documents mentioned in the indictment. it would have been coordinated in advance. the government must see a path to being able to use these documents in some form, perhaps redacted, at trial. >> let me ask you about jack smith. donald trump had his plea entered by his lawyer in court quickly on tuesday, but court wasn't dismissed for quite some time, and we came to learn that was because the judge was issuing a ruling on donald trump not being able to talk to any of the witnesses in the case, and what was so interesting about that is not that it happened, but that jack smith's team sided

with donald trump's team in not making that request. the judge decided to do it anyways. what does it tell you that jack smith wasn't looking to limit donald trump's ability to talk to the people on his staff? >> first, you're quite right. these no contact orders in criminal trials are quite common. the government didn't request one here. my sense, katy, is that they're picking their battles. what's the goal? their goal as prosecutors is to convince the jury by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that mr. trump and mr. nauta did what they are alleged to have done. does arguing about every single motion and ruling and issue in the case further that goal? answer is no. some of them are ancillary. some of them are less important than others. i think what they're doing, katy, is keeping their eye on the ball, improperly so. >> does that apply to the lack of requests for bond requirements, no cash bail, no limiting travel, no asking

donald trump to turn over his passport. "the new york times" calls it a fist inside of a kid glove approach. >> in part. i think in this case, there was really no way that significant restrictions were going to be placed by any judge on mr. trump's travel, for instance. he's also a candidate for president of the united states, and so he needs the ability to travel to raise money, to speak publicly. we would expect that would be appropriate for any candidate for high office. so i do think that's partially what i described earlier, picking your battles and really focusing in on the most important things in the case, but i think it's also a function of the government understanding here that they were very unlikely to prevail had they asked for significant restrictions. >> chuck, last fall when we were talking at length about the search of mar-a-lago, that the fbi did. one of the things that we learned when we got more from the search warrant was that section 2071 was invoked, which

prohibits the concealment and mishandling of sensitive government documents. that was not charged, though, in the indictment, and if it was charged, and he was convicted of it, it is the one charge that would have stopped him from holding office ever again. it's the one thing that would have not let him run for president and be president again. >> well, if i may disaggregate that a bit, katy, that statute you referred to, 18 usc 2701 was one of the predicate offenses for the search warrant of mar-a-lago, and as you note, does contain a provision that if you're convicted of it, you can't hold office. however, and i think this is an important however, my sense is that provision would be unconstitutional. why? because the constitution of the united states sets forth the conditions to be president. you have to be 35 years old, at least, and you have to be a natural born u.s. citizen. that's it, and so i'm not sure

as a constitutional matter that congress can legislate an additional condition on becoming president. i think those conditions are articulated, enunciated in the constitution of the united states, so i'm not sure that even if convicted of that statute, katy, he or anyone else would be precluded from serving as president of the united states. >> and that might be the reason why it wasn't included in the indictment, it wasn't a charge? >> that's my guess. >> chuck rosenberg, chuck, thank you very much for giving us all this time today. we appreciate it. >> my pleasure. and speaking of the alleged mishandling of classified documents, pentagon leak suspect jack teixeira has been indicted in boston. he faces six counts of retaining and transmitting national defense information. an attorney for teixeira declined to comment on the indictment. he remains, though, teixeira does, in federal custody because prosecutors say he is a flight risk. coming up, what no label says it will take to make it not move forward with a third-party

presidential campaign. they're issuing conditions. first up, though, breaking news, daniel ellsberg, the man who leaked the pentagon papers and exposed vietnam war secrets is dead at 92. we'll look back on what he did and what it meant in 60 seconds. d and what it meant in 60 seconds. ♪ limu emu & doug ♪ what do we always say, son? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance... so you only pay for what you need. that's my boy. now you get out there, and you make us proud, huh? ♪ bye, uncle limu. ♪ stay off the freeways! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪ dale ellsberg, the man who leaked the pentagon papers died at the age of 92. the most famous whistleblower in american history is also one of the very few to expose high level wrong doing without spending any time in prison. ells worth the 7,000 page of the top secret history of the vietnam war to the "new york times" in 1971. his goal was to shorten american military involvement by showing the public the government was systematically lying about the war. joining me now, presidential historian and coauthor of "the

nixon tapes" doug brinkley, and columnist for foreign policy magazine, michael hersch, who did an interview with him just the other day. let's talk about the legacy of daniel ellsberg, what did it mean for him to leak the pentagon papers in 1971? >> i'm sorry to hear of his death. he's a major figure as he rightfully said, probably the most renowned whistleblower in u.s. history. when he released in '71, with 7,000 classified pages that really documented particularly the malfeasance of the lyndon johnson administration, all of the lies and distortions that lbj and mcnamara made about vietnam were in those papers. nixon got furious about this leak, and it led to the famous first amendment fight of the "new york times" versus the

white house. but it was really damning on lyndon johnson, and nixon, of course, overreacted to it, and ellsberg became a fugitive from justice, and one of the epic stories of the vietnam war era, the ellsberg pentagon papers and the reaction of the nixon thugs breaking into ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. >> it's part of what precipitated watergate, one of the steps before watergate? >> i think it's the step that kind of led to watergate. you know, i've interviewed ellsberg quite a bit, and the one thing he kept saying is what made him do this, you know, he was a rand guy, a brilliant defense analyst, he kept saying over and over again that they were -- the quote was that they're eating at our children. they were just eating our own in vietnam. and he had talked particularly to the beat generation poet gary

snyder who was very anti-war, and ellsberg would listen to dissent, but didn't know what to do. he had really seen the lies had started in '67, and he didn't come forward unti '71, but when he did, it was a big deal. nobody could find him. the fbi wanted him. walter cronkite of cbs news tracked him down. they made a secret rendezvous, cronkite was blindfolded and thrown into the back of a car, and driven to an obscure basement, and there were the pentagon papers wrapped newspaper, and brown protective wrapping, and cronkite was able to do what fbi couldn't do, find ellsberg, and talk to him, and that aired on cbs. and the nixon white house seized that big media, walter cronkite didn't turn in the fugitive,

instead gave him time on the nightly news. >> correct me if i'm wrong, didn't he also write that despite him finding ellsberg and getting this big get, there wasn't any news made by cronkite in that interview? >> you're right. good point. and that's an excellent point. cronkite went to all of that to get to ellsberg but didn't ask any hardball questions, he kind of just let ellsberg talk, and so of course certainly the nixon white house was angry at cronkite, but many people said why was cronkite doing softball questions to daniel ellsberg, very good memory. >> well, i remember when i was writing my book and i had a little chapter about walter cronkite. michael, i want to talk to you about your last interview with daniel ellsberg, you focused a lot on whistle blowing and the difference between whistle blowing and leaking and how dangerous it's become to try and straddle that line. what did he tell you?

>> well, he said a couple of interesting things. one, that no one should, who wants to whistle blow should be out there thinking they're going to emulate his case, because he said it was nearly a miracle that he got off the way he did, and it was just because of watergate, because a judge ruled that what the watergate plumbers had done trying to break into his psychiatrist's office had essentially rendered the trial and the 12 counts that he was facing on the espionage act moot. he got off because of that, and what he emphasized was that it's become more difficult, more dangerous than ever to whistle blow these days. because these espionage act which was first used in his case to try to convict him has now been used a number of times. in fact, mainly by barack obama's administration. so you've had a number of prominent whistleblowers who have actually been convicted and sent to prison, which is quite unusual. so what his message was is that

it's more necessary than ever to uncover state secrets but it's more dangerous than ever. >> and he knew what he was doing, he knew the risks he was taking, right, michael? >> he did. he told me, and what his family said was his last interview in may that he really believed he was going to spend the rest of his life in prison facing 12 felony counts, and he could have done so had it not been for the sort of, you know, oddity of watergate. >> and he felt throughout his wife, doug, that the government wasn't being truthful with the american public, not just through the pentagon papers, not just what happened at the vietnam war, that democrats and republicans alike were in favor of whatever would help them domestically, and that sometimes did include worse? >> absolutely. he was just really denounced america's interventions around the globe. he became a dissident, a critic

of u.s. foreign policy in iraq and afghanistan in recent years. julian assange, he thought was a folk hero and should be honored for having the courage to do what he did. ellsberg became a darling of the hard left of the howard zin, you know, cabal. he was always a little bit, you know, seemed to me to be a little shaky and nervous. he had gone through a life of a lot of stress, and he felt it was his moral obligation to speak truth to power. and in later years, he would collaborate or talk to journalists and scholars trying to make sure they understood what was at stake, and we should not underestimate on his death, the power and the courage of the "new york times" under abe rosenthal to go forward and print the pentagon papers like they did, and "the washington post" did.

it was a still landmark moment in first amendment history in the united states, and it's ellsberg that spurred all of that. >> a case on prior restraint. thank you so much for joining us. what the no labels third-party presidential campaign is vowing to do, but only if president biden is way ahead in the polling. president y ahead in the polling (vo) this is sadie, she's on verizon. the network she can count on. and now she's got myplan, the game-changing new plan that lets her pick exactly what she wants and save on every perk. sadie is getting her plan ready for a big trip. travel pass, on. nice iphone. cute couple. trips don't last forever, neither does summer love. so, sadie is moving on. apple music, check! introducing myplan. the first and only unlimited plan to give you exactly what you want, so you only pay for what you need. act now and get iphone 14 pro max on us when you switch. it's your verizon.

overactive bladder, or oab, can change your world. like going hiking, just to hike to the bathroom. reaching for the bar, just to reach for pads. waiting for the sunset, just to wait for the stall. discover gemtesa. a once-a-day pill proven to reduce all 3 key symptoms of oab: leakage episodes, urgency and frequency in adults. do not take if you have a known allergic reaction to gemtesa or its ingredients. tell your doctor right away if you're unable

to empty your bladder or if you have a weak urine stream. tell your doctor if you're taking medicines that contain digoxin or if you have liver or kidney problems. side effects may include headache, common cold symptoms, diarrhea, nausea, urinary tract and upper respiratory tract infection. ask your doctor about gemtesa. more time here, less time there. ♪ i have type 2 diabetes, ♪ ♪ but i manage it well. ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance, ♪ ♪ at each day's staaart. ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to seee ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c. ♪ jardiance works 24/7 in your body to flush out some sugar! and for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. jardiance may cause serious side effects including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function,

and genital yeast or urinary tract infections. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction, and don't take it if you're on dialysis. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. ♪ jardiance is really swell, ♪ ♪ the little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ (jennifer) the reason why golo customers have such long term success is because we focus on real foods in the right balance ♪ jardiance is really swell, ♪ so you get the results you want. when i tell people how easy it was for me to lose weight on golo, they don't believe me. they don't believe i can eat real food and lose this much weight. the release supplement makes losing weight easy. release sets you up for successful weight loss because it supports your blood sugar levels between meals so you aren't hungry or fatigued. after i started taking release, the weight just started falling off. since starting golo and taking release, i've gone from a size 12 to a 4. before golo, i was hungry all the time and constantly thinking about food.

after taking release, that stopped. with release, i didn't feel that hunger that comes with dieting. which made the golo plan really easy to stick to. since starting golo and release, i have dropped seven pant sizes and i've kept it off. golo is real, our customers are real, and our success stories are real. why not give it a try?

remember ralph nadir, jill stein. remember what the losers in their elections accused them of, al gore in 2000 and hillary clinton in 2016. and now you know why democrats are condemning and so scared at the prospect of another third candidate. a spoiler going to ruin 2024 they think for joe biden. they are particularly frustrated with a group known as no labels which is actively trying to mount a third party campaign with what they call a presidential unity ticket, a campaign of two moderates, one left and one right. for a lot of americans who say they're sick of partisan politics that sure sounds great. so why is the group now saying they'll back off under one condition. joining me now is nbc news correspondent vaughn hilliard, and nbc news senior political editor mark murray. all right, vaughn, no labels. they haven't announced any names, but tell me what they want to do. >> they want to create a unity

ticket with a republican and democrat, one president, and one vice president. >> joe manchin is the one name, and joe manchin is the one person who has not said he will not join the ticket. but if you're talking about a republican i mean you can go to the grocery store. there's a handful of them that could potentialliy do it. >> the vegetable aisle, the frozen food aisle? >> there's a lot of aisles in this republican party today. there's a group with mega-donors and it created over the last ten years a concept they're part of the problem solvers cop plex. >> it's a goal saying this is not working like it is, let's create something new. >> so, okay, we're going to provide a centrist alturn. . and for a great deal of americans when you look at polling and ask them would you be open to a third party candidate, most of them say. whether that's ted cruz or

bernie sanders, you can create whoever you want. when it comes to a different name, that's a different story. >> why are they saying we'll bow out under one condition. what is that condition? >> they've had a lot of push back because of the potential of spoiling the election. look at arizona. it was 11,000 votes donald trump lost by last time here. and if you had a third party candidate in that election with like joe manchin let's just say, potentially there's a great number of arizonians that would have voted for him. and so the push back was you guys are going to spoil this election and put donald trump back in the white house. >> there's interesting polling you laid out this morning, mark, abnow, and they've changed in the past few years. explain what you've seen in the data. >> yeah, it's no surprise, katie, no surprise to you and vaughn, that our politics has actually gotten more polarized over the last decade or the decade beyond that.

what's interesting if you look at our nbc news poll that dates back to 1989 we can see fascinating numbers, and on the one hand we end up seeing the republican party or actually the composition of it has a lot more people who are white without college degrees. ten years ago it was half and half, and now it's 62% whites without college degrees. so a fundamental transformation of the republican party that's had policy and values consequences. on the same front the democratic party has become a lot more liberal over the last ten years where the very liberal percentage has gone from 19% in 2012 according to our poll to 29%. it really is that polarization where there this argument where no labels says can't we have a no unity ticket and a name like joe manchin or governor hogan of

maryland. as you and vaughn laid out the numbers from past presidential electionerize very stark where you end up having a situation where a third party can end up being a spoiler candidacy. and so we had this great big political growing polarization, but both political parties realize every vote does matter and including those votes in the middle, katie, where they often end up deciding elections, whether we saw in 2016 or 2020 or 2022. >> mark, i know you're steeped in this. do you envision a future at any point where there is a viable third party candidate? >> it would actually take a tremendous amount of money, katie. and what makes no labels stand out is the millions of dollars they already have behind it to give them ballot access. what the main political parties did often end up doing the republican party and democratic party they would often co-op

other movements that end up being a threat to you. if you end up seeing a movement like what we saw with the tea party movement or against wall street as we saw about ten or 12 years ago you end up seeing the political parties trying to almost corrupt those movements to ensure you end up having just two parties. >> gentlemen, thank you very much. a look at that, we're entirely out of time for this show. it went by really fast. that'll do it for me on this friday. "deadline white house" starts right now. hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in the east. it is through line in the story of the classified documents investigation, the one thing that keeps popping up over and over again. and it just might have been one of the biggest factors that led to trump being indicted by the government he once led. it is of course his obsessive attachment to what he saw as his