good to be with you, i'm kailt kate. -- katy tur. the president of the united states's son has been indicted. david weiss filed three gun-related charges in the state of delaware, accusing him of committing felonies when he bought a gun. there were no charges regarding his taxes. could those be next? president biden said a loved one's drug addiction is something most american families have had to deal with. does that make the troubles more

relatable or will this be an albatross around the president's neck. joining us now is nbc news senior capitol hill correspondent garrett haake, nbc investigative correspondent, tom winter, nbc news senior legal correspondent, laura jarrett, and nbc legal analyst, and former manhattan assistant district attorney catherine christian. i can't think of a better group of people to talk to about this. laura, back to the basics, for everybody just joining us now. explain these charges. >> this all relates to something that happened in october of 2018 when hunter tried to buy a gun, according to the u.s. government, and got that gun while he was under the influence or at least at a time in his life where he was addicted as he would say to crack county. you are not allowed to be under the influence of crack county and buy a firearm. he fell out of form, lied, said he was not using drugs at that time. he only has the gun in his

possession for roughly eleven days, according to our understanding, and according to the charging papers, it gets disposed of. the question is why are they bringing charges for something that happened in 2018, now in 2023, and our best understanding, based on the reporting and the rest of our team, it has to do with the statute of limitations. you have to charge people within a certain prescribed amount of time in the justice system. how the justice system works, to be fair to people, this is a statute that has a five-year statute of limitations. they were up against a clock, they file it now. the special counsel has authority to file the charges wherever he wants, he can file in delaware where he is and also file in california, direct of columbia. he has decided to file this one now, likely before the clock runs out, and the question is there anything else coming behind it, tax charges, stuff related to his foreign business dealings. we don't have that reporting.

we have this narrow charge, three counts, all related to the gun. >> let's stick with guns. i want to talk about taxes and your reporting with the irs whistleblower. let's play what hunter biden's attorney said about how long he was in possession of the gun and what these charges actually related to. >> hunter had a gun for eleven days. it was never loaded. it was never used. there has never been a stand alone gun charge brought by this office ever and, they decided it made sense to do a diversion because of hunter's condition at the time, and now they're talking about changing that. what's changed? not the facts, and if people paid attention, the only law that's changed is the court of appeals in the federal system that called that statute unconstitutional. so what changed? >> this is talking before the charges came through today. explain that. >> initially, there was a pretrial diversion in this case.

that's not something that typically goes before the court. it may not be something we would see normally if this wasn't the son of the president of the united states and a high profile plea agreement to the tax charges. normally that sails on through, it doesn't involve the judge. it's an agreement saying look, we think there's an opportunity to remove you from the trial process to divert you away from that in exchange for a number of conditions that you have to meet and keep, so that you're not in this particular instance, you're not abusing drugs, that you're not possessing a firearm, a whole host of things, and in exchange, we're not going to bring this before the trial process, not going to create a record. that sort of thing. that's what he was talking about. that's what was before the court. because of some of the warning of that and the questions that the judge had, that was one of the main reasons why this whole plea agreement and this diversion agreement appear to -- >> explain that portion of it. >> the judge at the time of hunter biden's plea agreement said typically i don't have any

sort of standing to talk about the diversion agreement. but you all have brought me into this because there's some language here that might be involved where i would have to resolve a dispute between the two sides as to whether or not hunter biden may or may not have violated the terms of that pretrial diversion agreement, and so that's where the questions started to rise, and as we remember from that day, there were all sorts of issues with, katy, and that's the reason this came up at all. it's not something we would normal see. >> we're using all sorts of legal jargon, but hunter biden had a gun for 11 days. he lied on this form, yes, but it was a gun for eleven days, never used it, never loaded. >> at least according to the government's understand, in violation of the law. doesn't matter if it's loaded. >> context, when they see a gun charge, what do they think is going on. this is what abby lowell said. if you're charging with three felony counts, lying on

paperwork, is it going to be an easy thing to get a conviction for? >> factually, it is, the question is, he has excellent attorneys, this was a case that just two months ago, the government was saying, you can get an alternative incarceration, known as diversion, and it will just go away, and because everything broke apart with the plea agreement, now it's like we're going to indict you, so, yes, factually, he was a drug addict, and he lied on a form about that, and he was in possession of a firearm. that's the charge. so it's very simple. but the question is why now. as laura said, statute of limitations, they couldn't do it if they waited until november. but why prosecute. >> if you're going to charge the president's son in such a highly scrutinized, extremely volatile situation where you have everyone on the hill jumping up and down about this, do you really want to charge using a statute that at least one federal appeals court, has said is no good.

now, does that mean that the case will all go away or all crumble, no, but it's a gamble. >> back up. talk to me about the statue that you said is no good. >> you were asking if it's a slam dunk, and a slam dunk would be perhaps, you know, easy facts, easy law. the facts are easy, and i would say probably not even really disputed but the law that they're using, possessing a firearm while under the influence, there's been some question about the constitutionality of that because of a supreme court case, and so the point there is they're charging him based on something that at least one federal appeals court has said is not okay. that law is not good law, and again, this will all get wrapped up in court. it just kind of underscores the vulnerability of the justice department charging in a high profile case, based on a law that the federal appeals court said is no good. >> let's talk about how this is

playing on capitol hill and what lawmakers are reacting to. let's go to what james comer, house republican, head of oversight, i believe, who's investigating hunter biden and president biden, and has been doing so for some time. let's listen. >> that's one of about a dozen crimes that hunter biden has committed, and ironically, that's the one crime that he committed that you cannot tie joe biden into. so we'll see what happens with the other eleven or so crimes that the president's son committed. >> garrett, what are the eleven or so crimes that comer is alleging. >> broadly speaking, the whole thrust of the impeachment inquiry is this idea that hunter biden was essentially out selling the biden family name and that joe biden was the product. and money from what hunter biden was out doing overseas in his dealings with ukraine or china or other foreign governments was finding his way into joe biden's pockets. those are the allegations. none of that has been proven and i think the one thing that's

come out of james comer's mouth that democrats agree with, in this particular case there's nothing that ties joe biden to it. that's been the overwhelming reaction point on capitol hill today from democrats saying, look, this is a hunter biden problem, not a joe biden problem, and we believe in the rule of law. to republicans who are saying, where was this charge four or five years ago, and is this going to be it? i mean, the same dynamic that kevin mccarthy is dealing with in trying to fund the government and keep house conservatives happy where they keep telling him enough is never enough, is it play here with the department of justice. you might think seeing charges against the president's son would undercut the argument of a two-tier justice system. not so. these house republicans are now arguing it's not enough. there should be more charges related to taxes and foreign business dealings, and this was a charge that only came out because it doesn't link hunter biden and joe biden together. we're at the tip of the

political iceberg here, in relation to hunter biden and how this is going to play in congress. >> why didn't this come out in 2018, president trump was president. it's when he was saying the biden family was doing all sorts of criminal acts, he's going after hunter biden. if this happened back then, why was it not pursued. >> we have two top legal analysts says this is an easy case to bring from a facts standpoint. you have the gun discovered by federal law enforcement. you have a federal form, that's what this haves around, he lied on a federal form. the form is held by the atf. i can't answer that question. i'm equally surprised by the fact that there were no tax charges brought here today because we have been told in in fact public filings, there were indications that that's the reason these charges were dismissed. >> when asked whether further indictments or charges would be coming from special counsel david weiss, our reporter asked him a moment ago, a special counsel person told us quote,

the investigation continues, which is what that paperwork said when we were initially talking about the plea deal that was the announcement on david weiss's web site. we all pointed that out and said what is that. i had chris clark on, and he said, no, there's nothing else coming, this is over. >> he was surprised by that, and i think very surprised in court when federal prosecutors said we could potentially bring charges because there is his understanding and he went over to the prosecutor's table at that moment. i was standing 10 feet from there, when he said we'll rip it up. this was supposed to resolve everything today. it was supposed to be done today, and why are we going down that path. from a big picture standpoint here, katy, the whole crux, and i think this speaks to garrett's point, the whole crux of what it means, testimony on this, their efforts have centered around hunter biden's business and the tax investigation, and that is still out there. i'm surprised it wasn't brought today. i'll bring it at once and be

done with it. it is something, laura touched on this earlier, statute of limitations it's a potential concern. statute of limitations are up on that in mid october. are we weeks away from further indictment. will that be brought in california? a lot of questions here today as far as where things proceed. there's no indication we're going to get any more indictments filed today. we'll leave it at that. i think there are going to be people, one of the whistleblowers i spoke to this week, they're going to have some questions about this. are these charges going to be brought at all. >> talk about the whistleblower, we have that breaking news. >> it's joseph ziegler, one of the people who has come forward, a democrat, regularly watches our air, frankly, and is somebody who's come forward and said, look, i opened this investigation. i asked him, did any information come from rudy giuliani, no, did donald trump pick up the phone and call him to investigate hunter biden. no, he started the investigation, he says, and he

has testified under oath to this, he opened the investigation when he was reviewing a prostitution ring. this was separate. irs criminal investigator looking into a prostitution ring, and saw a bank record that referred to hunter biden that was generate bid hunter biden, the institution that hunter biden does business with and worked with, saying we have potential concerns here about these transactions. he said that's what led him to open this investigation, and he believed and he has testified to that there are members of the justice department that agreed, and he used the word slam dunk, charges brought on a host of years, further than what was going to be agreed to in the plea agreement and there were felony tax charges because as he says it went to willfulness and intent. from the irs perspective and the people that have come forward and talked to congress, no tax charges, i can't imagine the reaction, if they feel it's a couple of misdemeanor charges, that doesn't reflect their

investigation in their words. >> they're still trying to link this, though, to president biden, garrett, as you mentioned a moment ago. they're trying to say that hunter biden's tax issues, business dealings, they all go back to president biden in one way or another that he is implicated in what his son was doing. they have not yet offered any evidence that president biden had anything to do with it, you tell me if some evidence has come out in the last few minutes that i haven't seen. what donald trump said on truth social, word for word, the gun charge is the only crime that hunter biden commit that had doesn't implication hunter biden. one down, eleven to go. garrett. >> look, i mean, as much as i said house republicans aren't going to use this particular charge against joe biden in any specific way, i don't think that applies to donald trump whose specialty when it comes to this kind of thing is not about winning the argument or even proving the direct point or linkage to any crime here, it's

about muddying the waters, using the words hunter biden, indictment, and joe biden in the same sentence as many times as possible. it's how he has dealt with legal issues or the perception of legal issues against him or his opponents, going back to the time when he was private citizen donald trump before he even ran for president. it's the hillary clinton model, and it's the model we're going to see here today. donald trump is going to be talking about hunter biden, as much or more than any other politician in america over the next year and a half. kind of regardless of what comes down, if the charges against hunter biden grow more serious, great for donald trump. if the charges against hunter biden don't grow more serious, it's a conspiracy at the justice department. they're going to find a way to spin this politically as best they can. and i think it's up to all of us who try to cover these things as honestly as possible, to point out when there is substance there and when there is unproven

accusations. >> we have watched james comer asking where's evidence, what's the crime, and he hasn't been able to produce that. it's important to note that. let me read what abbe lowell has brought around. >> just six weeks ago following a five-year investigation in this case. the evidence in this matter has not changed in the last six weeks but the law has and so has maga republicans improperly and partisan interference in this process. hunter biden possessing an unloaded gun for 11 days was not a threat to public safety but a prosecutor with all the power imaginable bending to political pressure presents a grave threat to our system of justice. we believe these charges are barred by the agreement the prosecutors made with mr. biden, the recent rulings by several

federal courts that the stauch statutes are unconstitutional, and plan to demonstrate all of that in court. catherine, if you were hunter biden's lawyer, any one of them, would you be looking back on the plea deal falling awe part, and thinking maybe i should have accepted whatever terms there were to avoid this? >> no, because those words, the investigation is continuing, no competent defense attorney would let their client plead guilty with a black cloud hanging over their head. unless the prosecutor says this is it, go on with your life, don't commit new crimes, you don't take a plea. they did the right thing, and i would say what mr. lowell did, get the agreement, both sides signed it, you are stuck by this, and i would argue eventually this case is going to be reversed if he's convicted by the united states supreme court. >> as tom pointed out earlier, the only person that did not sign it was the probation officer. is it a valid contract if

there's one signature left unfilled? >> where does it say the probation officer has to sign it to make it a valid contract. that's what the lawyers will do. if it had to be signed, it would be there. >> they'll argue their team. >> exactly. so it was both sides signed it, and the only reason it didn't go through is because the judge said wait a minute, i couldn't shouldn't be a part of this. >> president biden is speaking at prince george's community college in maryland. it's part of his bidenomics rollout, arguing economy is good, he's made it good, the state of america should feel good. we don't expect him to say anything about hunter biden. he might answer reporters' questions later. we'll monitor it to see if he does. in the past, he said he stands by his son. that he's a father first. loves his son. and that his son was going through a really rough time. the white house has been banking on this idea, and we mentioned it a moment ago, worth bringing

up again. this is relatable to a lot of americans, they have either directly dealt with issues with loved ones having drug addiction or they know somebody that this is a deeply familiar thing to americans and when they see this, that he's charged with felonies for possessing a gun for eleven days while he was high on crack cocaine, that they'll sympathize with the first family instead of villainize them. >> it's a two-part strategy. the first is not to elevate it, the president never talks about these issues unless he's asked about them directly. he says he loves his son, tries to move on. the white house is fighting an aggressive behind the scenes battle to try to encourage fact checks of the various claims that have been made against president biden and to a lesser degree, against hunter biden, and yes, they are trying to make

this a human matter when it comes to hunter biden. they believe there's a significant constituency of people in the country who have had family members suffer through addiction and understand what that puts not just the addict through but their family and all of their loved ones, and what a complex set of factors that creates for everyone in that person's orbit, and they hope that people sympathize with that. look, when he was running for president, his personal empathy was joe biden's super power. the way they could make this a personal, empathetic issue about a father who loaves his son and not an issue about the tax cases and what shell company was paying whom, it's a better story line for them in the court of public opinion which at the end of the day is where we are on all of these things, in terms of impeachment, which is a political act. >> one more question about taxes before we wrap this up. laura from what we know about the investigation into the taxes, what are the potential

allegations here? >> it's all about failing to file on time and failing to pay what you're required to pay. as far as we understand it, he actually did end up paying the money back, but in the eyes of the u.s. government, it does not matter if you didn't pay on time. he was making to the tune of $2 million roughly at the time. he had lucrative business deals with a ukrainian energy company, a chinese company that we have heard a lot about, and he was making a lot of money from that but was not paying his taxes on time. of course this also, during the same time, he's losing his brother, under the influence of a lot of drugs. there's a lot in the stew, but that's the allegation, and, you know, the tax crimes, just sort of like, you know, black letter law, you got to pay your taxes on time. >> if those charges come, where are we likely to see those charges, los angeles? >> california or d.c., where he was living at the time. >> catherine christian, laura jarett, tom winter, garrett haake, thank you for starting us

off. peter baker is going to join us in the moment with the white house's strategy on impeachment, and reaction to the hunter biden news, plus, this is something that could really change the trajectory of the next election. there are nine hours to go before the united auto workers strike. gm just offered another deal. we'll give you all the details. again, this is a very big deal, and the trial for sidney powell and kenneth chesebro is set for next month. what happened in a georgia courtroom as the defense attorney accused the d.a. of lying. we're back in 60 seconds. d.a. f lying. we're back in 60 seconds there's challenges, and i love overcoming challenges.

♪ when better money habits® content first started coming out, it expanded what i could do for special olympics athletes with developmental needs. thousands of bank of america employees like scott spend countless hours volunteering to teach people how to reach their financial goals. it felt good. it felt like i could take on the whole world. they've made a quarter of a trillion dollars in north american profits over the last decade. they nick and will dime our members every day. they price gouge the american consumer, and they squeeze the u.s. taxpayer for every dime they can get. the big three can afford to

immediately give us our fair share. if they choose not to, then they're choosing to strike themselves, and we are not afraid to take action. >> shawn fain right there, the president of the united auto workers saying the ball is in their court, that the union is willing to walk. there are less than nine hours to go before the midnight deadline. just this afternoon, gm says it has gone back to the uaw with another offer. we are still waiting on the details of that offer, but barring a breakthrough, all signs do, as of now, point to a strike. if that happens, the picket, which the uaw says will target specific plants could inflict deep economic pain. the kind of turmoil that can change the trajectory of the next election. joining us now is nbc news correspondent shaquille brewster, in fain's hometown in indiana, at a rally where they are preparing to picket, and

business and data reporter, brian cheung. what are you hearing from individual members out there? >> reporter: i'll start with the updates that we know. you mentioned gm making an offer earlier today. we know ford going through the latest of their offer defending their latest offer that they called historic and in both of these presentations you're hearing the auto makers and union members use the same line in saying that they are ready. here at this union hall, you see this truck behind me, they're actually loading up supplies. it was a tent that was just loaded on. we know that they had barrels that they were loading on. union members are saying they are ready to strike if that decision is made later tonight. they have supplies, they have the shifts that are already assigned. they know what they're going to do at this point, and when you ask about why, why are they ready to take the step despite the pain that it will cause for them and many of their families,

listen to a little bit of family members explain their reasoning. >> i don't want to be on the strike but the way the company has been treating us and try to say that we're a family, right now they're showing me we are not family. >> we are behind them. we're ready to walk out if we have to. we get the call, we will walk out. it is our time. it is our dividing moment. >> it's time. it's time that we get something back. they have taken so much from us. i have 24 years. michelle, 27 years. it's been almost 20 years since we got anything, and they keep taking and taking and taking, it's not about the management at work. it's about the ceos. >> reporter: you know the thing that sticks out to me, yes, it's about wages, retirement, work/life balance. for so many of these medical examiner -- members, it's about respect. they feel they are not receiving respect. >> you look at the charts how much ceos make, and workers in general in this country, that

gap is widening and widening. we have seen it in a number of strikes this year, a number of almost strikes as well. they're pointing to the top saying if you're making more money, we should too. shaq brewster, thank you very much. brian, lay out what the uawments and what the auto companies are offering. >> for what it's worth, the numbers that we have seen, they're asking for 46% wage bump, compounded over the next four years, the best offer we're aware of, talks are ongoing, this could be changing by the minute, a 20% wage bump. what i want to zone in, why such a big number they're asking for. we heard a lot of reference points from the uaw about how auto makers are making less than the average american. the yellow line is the overall average hourly wage of $33.82, the average motor vehicle and parts worker is only making $27.99. it's important to caveat this is union and nonunion. another talking point is how much the ceos are making. here's the change since the last

uaw agreement with the big three auto makers in 2019. ceo pay over that time went up by 32.5%. the media worker for that company, 2.8%. at ford, 18%, a little bit closer to the median worker, over 16%, and stellantis, we don't have the data because they're based in amsterdam, but the ceo pay ratio, how much they get paid to the relative worker is in the hundreds, this is a big talking point. for a lot of these workers, it's about principle. >> brian cheung, thank you very much. joining us now is the former head of the auto task force in the obama administration, steve rattner. you have been in the negotiating room before at what was a key moment in the survival of the big three auto makers. they were not doing well. as i understand it, you tell me because you were in there and i was not, the union made a lot of concessions, gave up their benefits package, the amount of money new workers were making was far less than the older veteran workers, i think it was

about half. now that these companies are making record profits, no that you've seen ceo pay go up as much as it has, is it fair for them to ask for some of that back? >> sure. it's entirely fair for them to ask for some of that back. i would say they have gotten some of that back in the 15 years or so since we rescued the auto companies, but i am very sympathetic to their needs. and their desires. the fact is that if you look at auto worker wages in this country over the last ten or twelve years, they have essentially flat lined after you adjust for inflation, as most other workers have gotten something of an increase over that period of time, and other industries. the key problem here that you have to recognize is that unlike, say, a ups driver or an american airlines pilot, where those jobs aren't going anywhere, in manufacturing and auto specifically, we're talking about here, those jobs are mobile in a sense. they can go to the south where there are many many factories

now operating with nonunion workers, paid much much less than the union workers, and then go to mexico where recently the number of auto workers in mexico is higher than the number of auto workers in the u.s., and where the detroit three companies have 20 facilities among them, down there making cars with people conservator paid literally 8 or $9 a day. the yin and yang of this so to speak is the more the workers make, the possibility is that there will be fewer jobs, and there needs to be a balance on behalf of both sides for this to work. >> i don't want to be polly an na but the companies have a choice whether to keep the plants here or move them to the south or mexico where they make dollars. i'm stuck on this idea that we helped you in your time of need, we feel like that now that everything is going so well, and clearly going quite well, we should share in that profitability. we should share in that hard work done over the past 15

years. goldman sachs researchers modeled what a 40% raise would cost. i'll put the numbers on the screen a 40% raise would cost 4 to 6 billion over four years for ford and gm. general motors gross profit last year was $22,344,000,000. that's a 32% increase. brian said that a moment ago. ford, their profit, $25.5 billion, and 9% give or increase over 12 months. with numbers like that, what can the companies reasonably afford to give the workers while still maintaining the money they need, and this is key, to develop and to innovative on electric vehicles where they have a whole lot of competition? >> as your figures implied and i wouldn't argue with them, the amount the unions are asking for relative to the profits is not life threatening by any stretch

of the imagination. i certainly get that. labor is only one relatively small part of the cost of making a car, yes, you can pay labor more, and still make a car. nonetheless, in our capitalist society for better or worse, companies are tasked are essentially keeping coasts as low as possible. and if costs in the midwest goes up too much, those jobs will move, whether they can afford to keep them in the midwest or not, and again, i don't mean to to sound like i'm hear as a spokesperson for the companies, i'm certainly not. i'm sympathetic to both sides. i would point out that general motors stock hasn't moved at all really since they went public a decade ago. the shareholders have not lost money but haven't knead any money in the last ten years either because this is a tough business as we have learned over the years. >> steve, what about politics? if they do walk out and there's

145,000 people on strike in the upper midwest, the rust belt, the blue wall, how threatening is that for a reelection for president biden? >> not great. it's obviously not great. for a couple of reasons. first the political reasons, secondly, there would be an economic impact. and we're on a fragile economic recovery. we don't want to jeopardize that. the president is in an somewhat awkward position here. he has described him fairly as being pro union, and i certainly also think of myself as pro union, but on the other hand, he needs to get that strike resolved, and i think you're going to see, i have already seen the white house at least behind the scenes trying their best to try to bring these two sides together, and i think they're going to try their hardest to do that because the political consequences are tough. the president is in an awkward position on this. >> do you think it gets resolved before midnight? >> i would probably take the under on that. general motors made a new offer

recently, the last hour or two, which was the best one they have made yet. closer but it feels like there's not a lot of time left to really wrap this up by 11:59 tonight. >> do you know the details of that deal? >> excuse me? >> do you know the details of that deal? >> i saw them just go by as a headline. they're out there somewhere, but basically, i think -- >> i haven't seen it because i have been in the middle of this conversation. we will look that up. steve rattner, thank you very much. >> my pleasure. coming up next, what do sidney powell and kenneth chesebro's lawyers want to ask the fulton county grand jurors who voted to indict. we have one of the lawmakers originally floated as an alternative to kevin mccarthy. does he want him out? ternative . does he want him out (mom) i think i have a much better plan. we switch to myplan from verizon. we get exactly what we want and save big. all on the network we can count on. (daughter) it's a good plan (dad) that is a good plan. glen looks like we're not going to be needing you. so i'll see you at work.

(son) later glen. (vo) this week. new and current customers... get a free samsung galaxy s23. plus galaxy watch and tab. all three. all on us. that's a savings of over $1800 offer ends soon. it's your verizon.

big news out of fulton county, georgia, sidney powell and kenneth chesebro are a go for september 23rd. and what could it mean for their security which has been a major concern for the court and local law enforcement. why did kenneth chesebro's lawyers accuse the d.a. of lying to the court. it got heated. joining us is nbc news justice and intelligence correspondent, ken dilanian. i got a whole lot of questions, ken. just explain, we have sidney powell and kenneth chesebro both going on october 23rd. what did the judge say about doing all 19 together? >> that's the big picture here is that these two defendants are going to go on trial this fall. a lot of people were wondering whether that could actually happen. he's moving ahead with the trial and he talked about the compressed time frame for jury selection and that the actual trial would start in november. the state said it would take four months. judge scott mcafee is saying more like eight months. it means that donald trump and his lawyers are going to get an

early look at the evidence at the prosecution's strategy for this case. that's a real advantage for them, and then we're going to go to questions about the other defendants, because many defendants are trying to sever themselves away from the main body in this trial. the d.a. is pushing to have as many people tried together as possible. there's precedent for that. once brought a case in a school cheating scandal where she tried 12 defendants at once. one thing that's clear is that even though this early trial will happen in the fall, donald trump is not likely to be setting in the defendant's dock in georgia for some time. >> ken dilanian, thank you. joining us now is msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin. let's play a moment from the court today that got a little heated. this was regarding discovery materials. let's play it. it's coming. well, okay. again, our tapes sometimes take a little while to load. chesebro's lawyers were saying that the d.a. wasn't handing

over discovery, basically that they had exculpatory evidence, was it kenneth chesebro or sidney powell. >> powell's lawyer says there was exculpatory evidence and the d.a. was hiding it. now we have it loaded. let's play. >> what is the purpose of this voir dire that they want to do of these grand jurors. how can it be used? according to the law, it can't be used as evidence at trial. >> i cannot take ms. young's word for it that is it was done properly. ms. young is trying to send my client to prison, and we have the right to know if it was done properly, and she keeps saying there's no case law. as your honor said, there is case law. instead of creating these wonderful power points that they're so fond of, read our briefs. the colin case says we can talk to grand jurors, so the fact that she got up here and lied, lied to the court. your honor, she lied to the court, and i apologize, and she

defamed my -- >> i've said it's over. >> i was wrong about leading into that sound bite. that's about the grand jury, mr. chesebro's lawyer accused the d. after of lying. what is he talking about? >> he's talking about the d.a.'s team raising prior conduct by mr. chesebro's lawyer, that he asked the court for permission to talk with the grand jurors, why, because in a prior case he was admonished by a judge in different county for having done exactly that without asking court permission first. that's when scott grubman got up and accused the d.a.'s lawyer of lying, and things got very heated until scott mcafee, the judge here said it's over. i'm not hearing that. what i think you can see here, though, katy, coming down the road if we want to take a broader lens here is, you know, litigators say if you have the facts, you emphasize the facts and avoid the law. if you don't have the facts on

your side, you emphasize the law, but here they don't have the facts or the law, and so what are they going to do? they are threatening to derail this by charging the d.a.'s team with prosecutorial misconduct. >> we hear that a lot regarding these cases. >> we want to explore what happened during the grand jury proceedings, and insinuated people with the d.a.'s team were inappropriately inside the grand jury proceedings. >> that's why they want to talk to the grand jurors. >> and the state really doesn't want that to happen. number one, they have a concern about the grand jurors' privacy and security. we know that fulton county has been making provisions for the privacy and security of their grand jurors all of whom were list bid name on the indictment. they also say grand jury deliberations are off limits. what could they possibly want to talk to these people about. that's in the scope of what's legal, and the judge is going to allow them to talk to these grand jurors but he wants to put

guardrails around it. he wants to know, what are the questions you want to ask. what are the topics you want to explore, and most importantly, give me a brief and show me the relevance of those topics and questions to the defense you want to advance for your client. >> big news here, october 23rd is the trial for sidney powell and kenneth chesebro, that is a little bit over a month away. that's when it's going to get started. this means all of the other codefendants, including donald trump are going to have a preview of the case. the d.a.'s team says it's the same case for everybody. >> they're going to have a preview, whether they were severed or not, and here's why. the case specific scheduling order that scott mcafee entered today for the other 17 entitles them to discovery by october 6th. that's two weeks in advance of when that chesebro/powell trial is anyway. he actually has made their pretrial motions due in december. i know our colleague ken dilanian thinks that former president trump and the other 16 codefendants who have been severed aren't likely to go to trial for many many months.

one thing that scott mcafee said in his order granting severance, the possibility of simultaneous trials. even if the initial trial with chesebro and powell takes in excess of four months, he's essentially saying if we need to, we can get other judges in the county involved because they're able and willing. >> quickly, there's news out of florida involving judge aileen cannon, and what she has decided about donald trump's ability to view classified material. >> donald trump and his lawyers wanted to look at and discuss classified material, not only in a special classified information facility, otherwise known as a skiff but perhaps as mar-a-lago as well, and she sort of said, no, but not quite. she said, you can look at that stuff and discuss it in a skiff or any other facility approved by the classified information security officer in this case, someone that she's appointed some time ago. >> lisa rubin, thank you so much for joining us, and we're going to talk about the other news that is out there and that is

what's happening on capitol hill. it's getting dramatic over there as well. speaker kevin mccarthy's frustrations with his conference appear to have reached a boiling point. and two sources tell nbc news that mccarthy has dared his hard liners to quote, file the fudging motion if they want him out. except he didn't say fudge. >> i showed frustration in here because i am frustrated with the committee. i'm frustrated with some people in conference. we had the d.o.d. appropriation bill yesterday. i couldn't put it on the floor. i don't have one complaint by my member of what's wrong with this bill. >> mccarthy added that when the house returns next week after rosh hashanah, they are not leaving until they fund the government and 60 days until a government shut down, they are worse with little consensus on anything, and how much any of this should cost. mccarthy warning hard right members of his caucus who are itching for a spending fight

that they are not only missing their moment to advance their priorities that they'll have even less leverage if they allow the government to shut down. joining us is republican congressman from florida, byron donalds, sir, thank you so much for joining us. i know you want to talk about hunter biden, and i do want to get your opinion on that, but i want to start first, with what is pressing in the house right now, and that is this looming government shutdown. are you ready and willing to turn the lights off to get what you want? >> look, my position is, and frankly the position of many members here is that we want the federal government to do its job, actually follow its laws, like border security law provisions, which are identified in law, and that if we're going to fund our government that the government actually should do the things that the american people expect it to do. that is our position. so what you're going to see unfold, i believe, over the next couple of weeks is our ability to try to make that a reality for the american people. the real question now comes into

does the senate and the white house not simply care about any of those adjustments and just want to continue the government that is not responsive to the needs of the american people. >> so what you're saying is if you don't get the concessions you want on border policy and other things that are never going to pass the senate, that you're willing to say no? how long is it going to take? >> well, actually, i think you got it wrong there, katy. that will be the senate and the white house saying no. we're actually getting pretty clear on our side of things that, yes, security of our nation is of paramount importance. it is one of the key functions of the federal government, and this is not about red states or red counties, look at what's happening in new york city right now as we speak. in chicago, illinois, right now as we speak. we have young kids who have gone back to school, and now that teachers are scrambling, trying to find translators for other children that have shown up in the schools, that's a serious

problem. if the senate and white house say they don't want any changes, that would be them saying now. >> why not go through a bipartisan compromise on immigration. people in new york are advocating for that. that's what mayor adams wants, he wants a compromise on both parties on immigration reform, that's what chicago wants, that's what they're saying, they're not saying take what the hard liners in the republican party want and force that upon everybody, they're saying both parties need to come together to find a compromise on this. why not do it that way. isn't government supposed to be a compromise between everybody, not just a force through of what one party wants. you don't like that when the democrats do it? >> i would tell you right now, that's exactly what the democrats are doing. when joe biden became president -- >> don't you think there should be a compromise? >> let me answer your question, and i will tell you why. >> that wasn't my question. >> the situation on the southern border is clear, joe biden is

ignoring the law, and completely opened up the asylum provisions which has led to the current environment. don't break the border and tell me now you have to go negotiate immigration policy. >> immigration policy has been on the table now for decades. it's not just joe biden. it has been on the table for decades. >> katy, don't do that. >> immigration policy and border security are two different things. we should be securing our southern border. there's no reason we should not do that, and in that environment where you secured the southern border, which by the way, we were well on our way towards doing before joe biden became president, that gives you the dynamics for both sides to trust each other in a negotiation about immigration reform. >> bipartisan immigration negotiations have been the hopes and dreams of many americans now for decades. it's not a new thing suddenly with president biden in charge. let me ask you about kevin mccarthy and his speakership, do you plan on -- do you think he's going to remain speaker for the rest of this term?

>> i do. listen, there's obviously contentious issues going on in the conference right now, but i'm just going to watch those things play out. i'm really not engaged in that. what i'm focused on is the house's ability to move through the process of appropriating for our government. i think the speaker will be fine. we have to walk through that process like every other process. >> if there's a motion to vacate, are you confident that he's got the votes? is he in a position of power right now? when he was in that conference this morning saying i dare you to do it, do you believe there are members of your party who are going to take that up? >> i don't know right now. i know there's conversations about it, but that remains to be seen. the number one thing that i'm working on that's in front of us right now, like i said, what are we going to do about government funding. >> what do you think of his leadership, palatable for democrats in the house, senate, the president? >> i'll come back on your show and we'll talk about it at that point in time, until then, the number one thing that matters, is where are we going on federal spending before september 30th,

and what are we going to do about security of our nation. those are the two key issues, the rest of the stuff is internal palace intrigue. it's cool to throw on the chyron and talk about, but that's not a fundamental issue that the american people are focussed on. let me ask you about focussed o. >> let me ask you about hunter biden. what is your take about the charges? >> about damn time. the attorney general bill barr was looking at this. they sent it to david weiss. the department of justice is in violation of their own regulations. if you bring in a special counsel, they're supposed to come outside the government. that's department of justice regulation. i digress. at the end of the day it's a slow-walked investigation. it has serious issues about what's going on at main justice. that's why i say about damn time. the facts were crystal clear for

years, but david weiss and his team were not pursuing this. >> congressman byron donalds, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> joining us now is nbc political analyst peter baker. hunter biden is one thing that happened today. there's also the impeachment inquiry that kevin mccarthy announced. what's the white house's strategy? >> the white house strategy on impeachment is to meet politics with politics. they view it as an illegitimate partisan effort to go after him. they want to convince democrats and independents of that as well. you don't hear high-minded legal arguments about what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors. the white house says there's not any evidence of a crime at all. the evidence has failed to show that president biden has benefited by hunter biden's

business dealings or used his power in office to benefit hunter biden. the evidence has turned up some unseemly conduct about hunter biden using the family name to get business, but hunter biden, of course, isn't the president. so far the republicans don't have what even some republicans think is evidence for impeachable offenses. the white house is going to take on this challenge as a political campaign on the argument that's what they think and argue that speaker kevin mccarthy did. >> do they see this as a liability? i hate to say that about somebody's son. it's a hard thing to wrap your mind around when you have ason and you're dealing with problems he faced and you want to be a father. at the same time he's running for re-election. do they see this as a liability when the republicans say they're criminal and there's shady stuff going on and they beat that drum

over and over. >> will the white house say it's a liability? of course not. they have a father who is very loving and protective about his son, very angry about the attacks on his son and believes many are political. that doesn't mean they don't understand politically it's a liability. so far they think -- it's in the conservative media ecosystem and hasn't affected the every day voter. that's the worry, especially if you have multiple trials and continuing investigations. a couple months ago they thought this was behind them because there was a plea deal. when that fall apart, it meant that hunter biden will be a continuing issue even beyond what republicans would like to do on the hill. a trial allows republicans to make a what aboutism argument between donald trump and joe biden as if they're somehow comparable. obviously there are different issues involved.

as a matter of politics, it muddies the water. >> the president's approval numbers have been stubborn. americans don't seem optimistic about the way the country is going. president biden is on the campaign trail -- well, he's out there trying to promote bidenomics. they seem to be trying to convince the public that things are good, but it's not getting through. are they worried about the polls or is there a sense that the poll numbers weren't great in 2020, yet people came out for him because the alternative was donald trump? are they feeling like the alternative is donald trump and that's their best asset? >> i think that's right. they would tell you not to pay attention to the polls because they did win in 2020 and the democrats didn't do as badly in 2022 as they were forecast to do. they're more than happy to cite

polls when they're helpful. they cite the polls about how their policies are popular and the public supports what president biden is doing. the polls show a sour electorate right now. that's important. you don't want a country where most voters believe you're on the right track. most voters believe the economy is getting worse not better, even though there are a lot of good economic numbers right now. unemployment is low. inflation is higher than people like, but much lower than at its peak. the price of -- the cost of household goods and groceries are much higher than at the beginning of biden's tenure and people are holding that against him. they think there will be a lag time between progress in the polls and progress in the economy. they said watch out for this in a few months and you'll see some progress. it's a frustrating situation for

the president to see them tied in a lot of polls with a former president who has been indicted four times. >> i want to ask you about immigration. when they talk about new york and chicago and the issues these cities are facing with the unflux of migrants and mayor adams said it will break the city, it has been a problem. the democratic line in these cities has changed to where they're demanding more done at the border. president biden so far has not engaged in that. are there conversations happening behind the scenes about whether he should or are they dead set against it? >> as a matter politics they don't see an advantage to him engaging in it. he doesn't talk about it. he doesn't give speeches. he doesn't visit the border.

i think they hoped things would get better seeing as the numbers had started to come down. the frustration by democrats in these cities is palpable. it goes beyond partisan politics now if you see mayor adams and others saying the crisis is affecting their cities. we'll see if that pressure forces him to address it. they don't see it as a political benefit to do so. >> peter baker of the "new york times," thank you very much. joining us now for the last couple minutes is the chairman of the council of economic advisers jared bernstein. the president gave a speech on bidenomics. i want to talk about the uaw possibly going on strike

tonight. is the president doing anything about this? >> we're watching this closely. he's engaged. he's talked about the importance of both sides staying at the table. he's deeply invested in auto worker jobs being great jobs for the middle class and maintaining a profitable sector there. we're watching that. no comments on the negotiations. >> what will it do to the economy to have them go on strike? >> i think the idea there is to just stay out of the particulars and speculation at this point. watch what happens. i'll be certainly happy to come back when we see how things unfold as they continue their negotiations. >> okay. the economy, the president is telling voters that it is good, that inflation -- if you look at the details, it's not as bad as it was. the job market is good. things are optimistic.

americans say the cost of living is rising. they're blaming the administration for food and grocery prices, or they're blaming food and grocery prices for the main reason of the cost of living increase. what do you say to tell people it's okay? >> look, people are the best arbiters of how they're doing. i'm not going to tell them how they're doing. the american people have been through a ton. a global pandemic, one we haven't seen for a century leading to a global inflation. putin's invasion of ukraine. there's so much that people have had to get through here. the whole time the white house under president biden has kept our heads down and tried to do everything we can to help businesses and families get to the other side of the crisis, which they've done with a very tight, strong labor market. we have one of the best

recoveries on record. one of the things it's doing, wages are beating prices. wages are growing faster than inflation. that's the case and it makes a big difference when you're trying to make ends meet. that's the breathing room the president is talking about. i understand those poll results. i see them all the time. if you ask people about bidenomics, if you ask them about the specifics of lower prescription drug costs, investing in the manufacturing sector, those poll around 80%. >> the uaw wants a 40% rise in wages and a cost of living adjustment. jared, thank you very much. that does it for me today. "deadline white house" starts right now. ♪♪ ♪♪ >> it's 4:00 in new york. an extraordinary step at the justice department. federal prosecutors have