Summary
FBI found trove of classified docs at Mar-a-Lago. Warrant for Mar-a- Lago cites Espionage Act. FBI finds 11 sets of classified documents at Mar- a-Lago. Republican messaging mixed on Trump defense. House passes Inflation Reduction Act.
Transcript
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Big win for Joe Biden today with the final passage of the Inflation Reduction Act more on that next week. THE 11TH HOUR with Stephanie Ruhle starts now.
STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC HOST: Good evening once again, I`m Stephanie Ruhle. This week began with the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump`s home down in Florida, and it ended with bombshell revelations that agents found highly classified documents down there. Earlier today, a federal judge unsealed a search warrant issued one week ago today, the search included Trump`s office all storage rooms, and all other rooms available to be used by Trump and his staff, and in which boxes or documents could be stored. Basically, they could go anywhere. The receipt agents gave Trump`s lawyer was also released. Among the items removed one set of documents marked classified TS/SCI, which refers to Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information.
Also found four sets of top secret documents, three sets of secret documents, and three sets of confidential documents. A total of 11 sets of classified records. Three laws are also listed as legal basis for the warrant. One is part of the Espionage Act. And well that has a lot of people jumping to conclusions and conjuring up visions of spies. It`s important to note, the Espionage Act encompasses a lot more than just that. It makes it a crime to remove or misuse information related to national defense.
Also listed a law forbidding hiding or destroying classified material, and another makes it illegal to destroy or falsify evidence in an investigation. Former Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained why that last one is very significant.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEAL KATYAL, FORMER ACTING U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL: That`s the one that probably does require an inside source of mold or something like that, working with the FBI. Otherwise, it`s hard for me to understand how the FBI would have thought that that would have been a potential crime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: The FBI also found information about Trump advisor Roger stones` commutation, and about French President Emmanuel Macron. As for Trump himself, he is denying Washington Post reporting that FBI agents were looking for classified documents related to nuclear weapons. He is calling that report one of his favorite words, a hoax.
With that, let`s get smarter and we certainly need help tonight with the help of our leadoff panel, Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent for The New York Times, Professor Melissa Murray of NYU Law School, she was a clerk for Sonia Sotomayor on the federal bench before her nomination to the Supreme Court. And Frank Figliuzzi joins us, former FBI Assistant Director for counterintelligence.
And I want to start with you, Frank. The Espionage Act. You are our counter intelligence guy. What is your tape?
FRANK FIGLIUZZI, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR COUNTERINTELLIGENCE: Well, I was looking for that as soon as I laid eyes on the warrant. And sure enough, there it was. And it was, it was really startling to see that with regard to a former president of the United States.
You explained it well on top, Stephanie. This is not 794, which actually involves the actual transmission to an adversary or foreign power of National Defense Information. But it`s close, it`s 793, it`s one of the most serious crimes, the U.S. government can charge someone with it. And it involves the retention of something called National Defense Information. Just because something is classified or government sensitive, does not mean it fits into the subcategory of stuff we call National Defense Information, that`s specific to the defense of the United States. And the person has to understand that this is something that could actually damage the United States or eight an adversary for government. There`s a lesser provision in there that makes it the same crime, you could be convicted of 793 simply for retaining, gathering, collecting National Defense Information with the understanding it`s injurious to the United States or helpful to an adversary. And, you know, that kind of fits the pattern here. He knew, he was told. There was a subpoena. They wanted it back. He didn`t do it. That sounds like 793 to me.
RUHLE: So if he did violate this act, what are the consequences? Frank?
FIGLIUZZI: Well, 10 years in prison, you`d have to also if you ever got any compensation from say, a foreign power or some third party for discussing that kind of information, you`d have to forfeit all that money back if indeed got it, but look as a candidate intelligence professional what really concerns me, Stephanie, is the damage assessment. So everyone understandably is focused on crime, crime, crime. I`m focused on damage. This has been sitting there for what? A year and a half, maybe we`re just now through either sources or discussions with Trumps attorney. DOJ just realized the gravity of what`s still there.
[23:05:24]
And it`s been there and exposed to who? Who is he told it, showed it to, you know, you don`t charge 793 lightly and understand something, it`s not that they threw things into the warrant that might be possible, it`s that they had probable cause to believe that espionage may be occurring, that`s very significant. They wouldn`t do that lightly.
I`m concerned about who`s seen it, who he`s disgusted with. And there could be real damage. And with the Washington Post reporting that maybe some of this was nuclear nature, I don`t even -- I can`t even imagine how much damage this could be done. And the FBI has got to do two things parallel, the damage assessment, who saw it, who had their hands on it, who might have had access to it? And then of course, the criminal side the investigation.
RUHLE: And let`s remind our audience where it was, it was not in the White House. It was not in Camp David, it was not on -- it was not in any secure location. It was at Mar-a-Lago, a club, where people go to parties, charity events and weddings, hundreds if not 1000s of people roll through that joint.
Melissa, I want to share with National Security attorney Mark Zaid said specifically about the Espionage Act earlier tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK ZAID, ATTORNEY SPECIALIZING IN NATIONAL SECURITY CASES: There are some defenses without a doubt that Trump and his lawyers will raise primarily because the statutes in question were never intended or envisioned to be operable against the President of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Do you think he`s right?
MELISSA MURRAY, NYU LAW PROFESSOR: I think it`s certainly a defense, Steph, the former president will press as this goes forward. As we`ve said, throughout the last couple of weeks, as all of this has unfolded, we are really in uncharted waters. So there`s never has been a situation where a former president with say the exception of Nixon, where former President has had this kind of information, has withheld this information. And the information is so decidedly sensitive as the information recovered today, yesterday at Mar-a-Lago.
So this is uncharted territory. This will surely be a defense that he offers. He`s already talked about the notion that he`s declassified the information by his own Fiat, that`s not necessarily relevant for any of the acts, which have been listed here in the warrant, they don`t necessarily depend on the classification of the information that was in question. But it is something that he will press. And again, this may just be a delay tactic to run out the clock until you can sort of get beyond this, if he can get beyond this.
RUHLE: Peter, have you heard any argument from Trump World as to why any of these documents would be down there for months and months in Palm Beach, Florida?
PETER BAKER, THE NEW YORK TIMES CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we haven`t heard any explanation of what he wanted them for, or what he plan to do with them. And we have heard from Trump World is an explanation in the sense of saying, hey, he`s the president. He gets to declassify things, he declassified the Senate before he left office. Therefore, he`s not guilty of removing classified information.
Look, it is true obviously, the President of United States does have the ultimate power to declassify information, no question about it. But he`s not usually done with the snap of the finger and a last minute meeting before you happen to head to the helicopter and get out of town. I mean, usually there`s a process, it has to go through some sort of review, there`s usually an argument or at least a discussion about what might be safe to reveal, what might not be, why you might not want to reveal certain thing, what parts might be safe. That kind of thing, doesn`t sound like that kind of thing happened here. It sounds like there`s just simply saying because he`s president, he says the words I hereby declassified, therefore they`re declassified.
Now, I`m not a lawyer. Obviously, other people on this program are smarter than I am about this. It could be a test of if we get to that argument in court as to whether or not you can constrain a president`s power under Article Two to run the executive branch by saying he has to do things a certain way and he didn`t do them the right way. But certainly it`s unlike any declassification that we`re aware of any normal president and normal circumstances not simply say I`m bringing these documents home with me because I like to know about nuclear secrets.
RUHLE: I want to get deeper into that, how the D.C. classification process works. But before we do, Frank, help us understand this, give us -- what is the difference between confidential secret -- top secret and TS/SCI, all of which were found in Trump`s house?
FIGLIUZZI: Yep, what drives those classifications is the degree of damage that could be caused if they were to get into the wrong hands so confidential would cause damage. Then you move up to secret which would cause serious damage if compromised and then finally at top secret you`re causing what`s called exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
[23:10:11]
Now, a lot of folks will say, and then there`s something above top secret, which is compartmented, or special access. That`s actually, you know, for nerds like me with regard to classification. That`s not accurate. The highest you can go is top secret, but there may be compartments, within top secret and Special Access Programs that you have to get read into. I during my FBI career was read in and out of certain special access for compartmented programs, you actually -- I had situations where I had to be polygraph into a program and polygraph out of a program. That`s how sensitive they are. They often involve sources and methods, techniques and technologies, human beings that might even be killed if the information they provided was divulged. Literally life and death could be involved here.
And the thing is, it`s timely, you have to have a need to know at that moment in time, when your need to know is over an investigation is done or you move on to another position, you get briefed out of that program, you don`t stay in it forever. With regard to nuclear information, it`s an entirely different clearance. And some experts would say that nuclear information, particularly under the Atomic Energy Act is inherently classified and can`t be declassified by a president. So that would be very significant. If there were nuclear -- if there was nuclear weapons data, amongst the search to items.
RUHLE: Damn, Frank, you might be a nerd, but you are our kind of nerd. We`re lucky that you`re here.
Melissa, Lindsey Graham, who is not just in Times, he`s a Trump mouthpiece, but he`s a former jag lawyer. He knows what he`s talking about. And what did he mean, when he sent this tweet? Let Americans see the affidavit. Why is that important?
MURRAY: I think the affidavit would give us more of a theory of the government`s investigation and the actual substance of the investigation. Now, I too thought that the affidavit would be incredibly helpful because one, it would lay out where all of this is going and what they`re trying to put together. But more importantly, and perhaps this is Senator Graham`s purpose, it would actually identify the source or sources that for some of this information, as Neal Katyal suggested earlier, some of this is likely to come from the inside. And so there might be a source name, and perhaps there might be reprisals by those who are close to the president against that source.
RUHLE: But can`t more information, Peter, hurt Trump? Wasn`t it two days ago, Mitch McConnell and others, we need Merrick Garland to show us what he`s doing and why he`s doing it. And Merrick Garland showed up and showed out yesterday and push Trump and Trump was forced to agree. Lindsey Graham now saying, let`s see the affidavit. Is that what Trump wants?
BAKER: Well, I think there`s a lot of concern about that in Trump world, but what that affidavit would show whether, in fact, it would be damaging remember, just three, four days ago, after this search was first disclosed by the former president, there was all this talk and Republican world about how this just reelected him, this is a big deal in making him more popular with his base show that the government was out to get him and so forth.
Today, the conversation is, oh, my gosh, what was in those documents that we now see from this list here, that he had involved at Mar-a-Lago, and I think that`s changed the conversation. Doesn`t mean he hasn`t still controlled, you know, a lot of popularity in the Republican Party, but the conversation is certainly not as advantageous to him tonight, as it was just a couple of days ago, more information, you can imagine, we`ve continued to move that conversation away from this sense of victimhood, and more toward the question of what he did and why he did it and how it may or may not add up to some sort of a legal violation.
And the affidavit would tell us why the prosecutors and the FBI is believed there was a crime here, at least there`s a probable cause of a crime here. And that`s a really, really big deal. We`re not talking then about excess action by the FBI. We`re talking about excess action, in effect by a foreign press the United States in a way we`ve never seen in our history in this country. And I think that`s a conversation that would be very uncomfortable for a lot of Republicans potentially.
RUHLE: Melissa, what are Trump`s lawyers saying to him tonight?
MURRAY: Well, I imagine these are really serious conversations. And this is a lot of danger. I think, legal liability, the former president faces. I`m sure they are trying to, A, figure out who the potential sources of this information are and what the extent of this damage could be. And then I think they`re turning to the question of what the elements of these particular crimes are.
You know, Peter is right. The president can declassify information, there`s maybe certain kinds of sensitive information that cannot be declassified. But for all of these different statutes that are in gets you here, none of them necessarily requires that the information be classified or declassified, it`s merely in the case of two of the laws, just keeping it, mutilating it, falsifying it for the purpose of impeding a government investigation or the investigation of a federal agency.
[23:15:08]
And so that could be a lot of things. And so there`s a lot of legal liability here. Some of it could be for things that are quite serious. And some of it could be for things that are quite quotidian.
RUHLE: So Frank, what happens next in the investigation, what are you looking for?
FIGLIUZZI: Well, now that they`ve actually confirmed the presence of top secret and secret and other information, they are either -- you know, there`s two paths here. One is they either now have what they need, and this is just what they needed, and they`re ready to go. But that`s unlikely. What I think is going to going to happen now is a painstaking process, Stephanie, where they have to literally go back and see who touched these documents.
I would not be surprised, by the way, if they`re actually trying to fingerprint some of these documents to determine who touched them. And when because, you know, we`re dealing with government employees here who probably have fingerprints on file. So who`s touched them? Who`s seen them? That`s part of a damage assessment. But also, we`re so focused on Trump that I think the investigation, Stephanie, has to include others who were conspirators with him, he can`t have done this all alone, it`s unlikely that he packed all those boxes, kept them in wherever they were at Mar a Lago. Someone had to have knowledge of this, and I think they`re looking at other people as well. And that we`ve already talked about the damage assessment.
The other thing is, where did this information come from? We talked about this broad power to declassify as a president, but not really when it comes to other countries, classified data that they shared with us. Now, he`s tried this before. He did it with the Russians. He gave the Russians in the Oval Office information that came from another country. That doesn`t mean it was lawful, and he doesn`t have authority to do that, in my experience, when it comes from another country. So they`re going to be looking at where`s this derived from? Who`s the originator, what was the declassification process, who touched it, who helped him? All of that going on as we speak.
RUHLE: It makes me think back to that last month where Trump was in office, Steven Mnuchin, Jared Kushner, overseas in the Middle East, building their next businesses for when they were leaving the administration. Wonder if any of those countries would be interested in this information.
Peter, Melissa Frank, do not go anywhere. We`ve got more to cover on the other side of the break. The threat still facing federal law enforcement after the attack on a Cincinnati FBI office. We`re going to look at what is next, as these baseless attacks are continuing.
And later, the mixed messaging from the right on the search at Mar-a-Lago as we learn new details. David Plouffe, Matthew Dowd are here to break all of it down. THE 11TH HOUR just getting underway on a very serious Friday night.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:22:28]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KATYAL: We learned that at Mar-a-Lago was some of the nation`s most serious sensitive information, what is called Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information that was at Mar-a-Lago. So it ain`t no hoax. It`s there. And there`s no reasonable argument that could be advanced for why that material is at Mar a Lago presents not -- Donald Trump`s not the president anymore. He has no need for that information.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: The presence of those documents outside their proper secure location could represent a national security threat. And as baseless accusations against the FBI continue, federal law enforcement leaders are warning of growing danger to their officers and their agencies.
Still with us to discuss Peter Baker, Melissa Murray and Frank Figliuzzi. Peter, let`s go back in Trump`s history, he is not the best guy when it comes to keeping secrets. Talk to us about things he`s done with classified information on thinking Russia, North Korea, he doesn`t have a good record.
BAKER: Yeah, no, that`s right. I think there`s a long history of Cavalier or at least casual, you know, control over classified information. Frank alluded to the one incident where he`s in the Oval Office with visiting Russian officials, the Foreign Minister and the ambassador in which he mentioned. Intelligence about the Islamic state that had come from the state of Israel, that caused a great deal of concern. He obviously, you know, at one point, he tweeted out a picture, satellite picture of an Iranian site that had been given to him during a briefing, there`s a lot of concern over that.
I remember he -- remember he had his cell phone that he continued to use at one point, even though he was warned that it was being tapped, or at least potentially tapped by the Russians and Chinese, he was told that he should stop using it because in fact, that was, you know, vulnerable to foreign interception. And he continued to use it anyway.
We saw repeatedly throughout his presidency, a sort of, you know, a very casual attitude toward classified information, which of course, is a certain irony, given that he spent 2016 attacking Hillary Clinton for her casual attitude, arguably about classified information in her email server that she had at her home. He said that people who were casual about classified information weren`t qualified to be president. Of course, then he became president and was even more, you know, cavalier about it.
I think that this shows why the intelligence agencies were always very nervous about giving him particularly sensitive information they withheld from him things like the names of sources and other specific details that they worried that he would just blurred out in the middle of a meeting or say on TV or put in a tweet. So they gave the information you needed as president but they try very hard to be careful about what they gave him so there`s not to expose people and cause great damage to America`s interests.
[23:25:14]
RUHLE: Melissa, that`s what we need to do is to do a fact check for us. Peter brought it up in the last segment, Trump allies have now come up with this new argument about why he might have this information that, you know, it just like you or me, we want to bring some work home from the office and do some reading at home. That`s what Trump was doing. And it was standard operating procedure, all of that information, it would automatically get declassified. First things first, from a practical sense, we know from the Trump administration, Donald Trump does not read, I called a former member of his administration when this news came out, and they laughed me off the phone. But besides Trump`s behavior, give us the actual facts around how information gets declassified because it doesn`t just happen in one fell swoop.
MURRAY: So there are federal regulations that specify the process for declassifying information. And it`s actually a very sensitive process that thinks about the nature of the information, the substance of it, the methods by which it was collected, the sources that were -- it was -- that were used to collect it. And it makes a determination about whether the information can be declassified at all in what circumstances, the declassification could occur. And this can take a lot of time. It is a laborious and painstaking process, as you can imagine because of the nature of the information and all of the different concerns around it and keeping it safe. And the idea that a president would simply bring some work home from the office and just keep it in a basement in a golf club in Florida is really kind of ludicrous, and really boggles the mind.
This is information some of which could not be viewed unless it was in a Sensitive Compartmented Information facilities skiff. You`ll remember the whole universe learned about skiffs when we were in the middle of the impeachment hearings. And the Congressman had to listen or go down and review certain information in a skiff in the basement of the Capitol. You can`t simply take certain kinds of information outside of those compartments, where there`s security clearance, where there is security to keep them safe, and just bring them to Mar-a-Lago. And so the idea that he`s bringing work home, you know, I guess, but it`s really highly unlikely in the context of a presidency where the President is privy to so much sensitive information and data.
RUHLE: And remember, even if any of those arguments were true, our grand jury subpoenaed Donald Trump to return these documents months ago, and he didn`t do it. That was before the search.
Frank, let`s talk about the FBI. Because yesterday, a man fired a nail gun at an FBI facility in Ohio. He was killed after a standoff with police. That same man was at the Capitol on the day of the insurrection. What are people within the FBI telling you, devoted men and women who this past Monday, were just doing their jobs?
FIGLIUZZI: Well, first, the security posture across the FBI all 56 field offices is now elevated, they`re taking special measures, almost unprecedented in my memory, the closest I can think of to this was after 9/11 when we still in the immediate aftermath, we didn`t know the level of threat and attack that might occur. And security around all federal buildings, including the FBI was escalated. But I have to tell you, this is the first time in my memory that the threat is this broad and this persistent if you go on extremist, violent extremists, chat rooms and sites right now, you`re seeing person after person account after account saying that they need to come after the FBI, it`s time to do this.
And in fact, we know now that there are circulating copies of the search warrant. And it`s particularly the return the receipt for things taken that has the name of two FBI agents unredacted on it and that Breitbart, so called news has put that out and whether that came from the Trump camp or not, I won`t engage in that conjecture, but whoever is putting out the information that the FBI is doing this for political purposes or has done something unlawful. If someone is hurt, if a federal agent is wounded or killed because of this, it`s on them, Stephanie, if they are responsible, they will be accountable. A man died in Ohio because he bought the lie. That evidence was planted that the FBI is doing something unlawful. People die because of Trump and his minions, creating lies and fabricating disinformation.
RUHLE: Sticks and stones break bones, but misinformation matters too. It`s destroying our country. Peter Baker, Melissa Murray, Frank Figliuzzi. You all made a smarter tonight and we appreciate it.
[23:30:00]
Coming up, the highly classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago they`re hard for some Republicans to ignore and now it is splintering GOP messaging. Our political panel weighs in when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DAN CRENSHAW, (R) TEXAS: Disgusted by the attacks on FBI agents and absolutely disgusted by it. In some of the calls I`m seeing abolish the FBI that`s also foolish.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:35:00]
RUHLE: Even as Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw dismissed attacks on the FBI as foolish, other members of his party have doubled down. Here`s what House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik had to say earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ELISE STEFANIK, (R) NEW YORK: House Republicans are committed to immediate Oversight Accountability and a fulsome investigation to provide needed transparency and answers to the American people regarding Joe Biden and his administration`s weaponization of the Department of Justice and FBI against Joe Biden`s political opponent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: With us tonight to discuss David Plouffe, former Obama Campaign Manager and Senior Adviser to the President and MSNBC Political Contributor, Matthew Dowd. He`s also a former George W. Bush strategist and founder of Country over Party.
Mr. Dowd, to you first, your reaction to the week Republicans just had?
MATTHEW DOWD, MSNBC POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: I mean, just in a neutral fashion, it was a very -- you know, what was said about attacking the FBI, in amazingly, is popular among the Republican Party. And so I think it was a bad week. I mean, the thing I don`t think they realize and the Republicans, I think they even though they face this in elections is Donald Trump has never any single day been supported by a majority of Americans. And every time they run to the defense, especially in the final 90 days of an election, it only makes them a stand in for how much most Americans dislike Donald Trump and don`t trust Donald Trump. So I think it unites the Republican base, which is increasingly smaller. Donald Trump is still amazingly popular. But what it does is sending a clear signal to swing voters in a majority of Americans is if you want Donald Trump back vote for the Republicans.
RUHLE: It has given Trump`s base or the Republican base or reason to rally around him. David, conventional wisdom would say this week has been Donald Trump`s worst nightmare. But the truth is his worst nightmare is to be forgotten, is to be irrelevant. And now he`s the only thing on all of our minds. What do you think of that?
DAVID PLOUFFE, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Well, Stephanie, that`s firebird, although there`s a couple other things he probably rank even lower than relevancy. One would be in jail. The other would be actually to run for president again and lose again, either the Republican nomination in the general election. So yeah, there`s no doubt. Listen, I think it`s fascinating with the Republican Party. I mean, I think most Republican elected officials, not all are going to follow Donald Trump wherever it leads. They`ve hitched their entire political wagon to him, their integrity to him, their future to him. And there`s a bunch of voters who`ve done that as well.
But there`s some Republican officials who I think are going to play wait and see here, who are going to be more judicious and I think there`s a lot of Republican voters and basically, the rest of the American electorate was very concerned about that.
And I agree with Matthew, I mean, I think what`s the message you heard this week, basically, if you give the Republicans power, they`re not going to work on inflation or health care or education, they`re going to basically conduct investigations to do Donald Trump`s dirty work. And I think there`s a lot of Americans that want to turn the page on.
So I -- listen, I`m not sure what this means here for 2022. I have stronger feelings that ultimately, this is not helpful to him in 2024. But we`ll see. But I think a lot of people are tired of the circus. And this is much more serious than a circus. I mean, Matthew, was around administration, as was I and how you dealt with intelligence, how you dealt with top secret information, I mean, this goes through the entire presidency up until Donald Trump. People handled it judiciously, carefully, lawfully. And he`s used this as his own private playground.
Now, what he was doing with this information, we`ll find out. But at the end of the day, Stephanie, I believe that this hurts him in his quest, potentially, to win back the White House. Because I think there`s even a lot of people, Republicans who say, you know what? We can get a lot of the MAGA policy, but we don`t necessarily have to have these damaged goods.
RUHLE: Yeah, that`s what Ron DeSantis is waiting in the wings, Matt.
DOWD: So one thing I want to add, and I think there`s always been a misinterpretation since Donald Trump got elected president United States, and though it may benefit Donald Trump, in his own ego, to be out there as constant and all of us talk about them. If you look at poll after poll after poll since Donald Trump got elected, is every time he is front and center, a majority of Americans react negative to literally to him and so 2018, he`s front and center. The Democrats pick up any a number of seats, take back the house and do that. In 2020, same is true, and when Donald Trump disappears from the conversation, and Mitch McConnell understands this better than anyone is better for the Republicans. The Republicans do not want this to be another referendum on incompetence and corruption related to Donald Trump. And every time he shows his face though it made the MAGA crowd cheer and everybody get vociferous. A majority of Americans when Donald Trump appears they thought they had gotten rid of him, and now he`s back. And that is only going to be to the detriment of the Republicans in a general election.
[23:40:26]
RUHLE: And in a general sense, when Donald Trump shows his face and starts talking, that`s when people in our seats have to start fact checking. David, Trump is accusing Obama, who you worked for, saying Obama kept classified documents. The Washington Post pointed out the Obama team did not. They transferred any records to Chicago through the National Archives. Can you explain this to us, you are part of that White House, debunk this lie that Trump is trying to push?
PLOUFFE: Yeah, it`s a lie. It`s completely made up. So whether it`s Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush, or George H.W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan, you know, you all those presidents believed in the rule of law. And part of that was procedures around documents. So, what -- we don`t know all the details. We`ve now seen, you know, what was part of the search warrant? But no president even Richard Nixon, OK, didn`t think about this. I mean, for Donald Trump to take classified information, top secret, maybe signals intelligence, which is the most sensitive information that we have, and around potentially nuclear weapons.
It`s hard to fathom. I mean, even for me, who thinks there`s no bottom for Donald Trump? Even this, to me is surprising. And so it is a complete lie. And again, this is where Donald Trump stands apart from every former United States president. OK, every single one. And my guess is every single one in the future. You know, knock on wood, so yeah, it`s -- listen, this is an old standby, you know, Obama did it, or Clinton did, or Bush did it, or, you know, it`s complete fairy tale. And it`s very malicious, because I think a lot of his base will believe it. But the fact of the matter is, presidents and their administration are under very strict guidelines with what happens with records, classified information, et cetera, when they leave the White House.
And Trump`s the only one who not only did it, apparently, but thought about bringing that stuff down to his private residence. And, you know, apparently, you know, we`ll find out exactly what the motivation was, if that`s true. We can all speculate about that. But this is a danger to national security. It`s unprecedented. And again, listen, he`s a bad guy. He was a bad president, in my view. But we shouldn`t be surprised. You know, this is basically -- he just doesn`t think the rules apply to him. And I think there are a lot of Republicans who ultimately, not most Republican voters who want that as well. And in an autocracy, the rules don`t apply to you. You`re not held to account for anything, Stephanie. And I think that`s what may be the grand design is here for a lot of them, which is to live in a world where there`s no accountability from the voters, from the judicial system, from the press, from the rule of law.
RUHLE: And we need it. And a quick reminder, I invited them last night again tonight, any Republican in Congress now who would like to discuss why they believe it is OK to have those kinds of documents down at a private residence in Florida. Come on over, I`ll be here every night at 11 p.m. But for now, I want to say goodbye and thank you to David Plouffe and Matthew Dowd. Good to see you both.
When we come back, the inflation Reduction Act has passed in the House without one single Republican voting for it. And now some of them are distorting what`s in it. Congresswoman Katie Porter she voted for it. She`s going to talk all about it on the other side of the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:48:37]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) HOUSE SPEAKER: On this vote the yeas are 220, the nays are 207. The resolution -- the motion is adopted.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: The Inflation Reduction Act officially passed in Congress today. The sweeping tax climate and health bill will land on President Biden`s desk next week. And not a single Republican voted for it.
Back with us tonight to discuss all of it, California Congresswoman Katie Porter. Katie, I heard you might even have a whiteboard with you, which is really your signature move. And I`m excited about it. Inflation Reduction Act, great name. Now for all of those who say President Biden, what are you going to do about inflation? You`ve got it, explained to us how it`s going to help the American people?
REP. KATIE PORTER, (D) CALIFORNIA: Well, the thrust of the bill is bringing down costs, and for American families in the short term through things like reducing the health care premiums that families pay within the Affordable Care Act, reducing the price of prescription drugs and reducing energy costs for families in terms of heating and cooling their homes. So those are the three areas that families are going to see immediate investments.
But the other part about this is about creating a kind of strong, stable, globally competitive economy that`s going to have the kind of energy independence and energy security that will help us fight for sources like global instability that can lead to inflation in the future. So I think there`s -- this is a terrific economic plan and then it both addresses short term concerns where American families right now, but also as a mom, as someone who`s thinking about the future, this sets us up to equal and best our global competitors in terms of the economy of tomorrow.
[23:50:20]
RUHLE: There are some Republicans out there warning with the passage of this bill, there will be, "An army of 87,000 IRS agents coming for Americans earning less than $75,000 a year." Do want to fact check that?
PORTER: What a load of malarkey, that is just not true. Let me tell you the straight deal, I get phone calls every day from my constituents and my colleagues around the country, and asking for help with federal agencies that are not being responsive that they`re waiting on answers from the number one agency that the American people would like to have, have more agents be more helpful, pick up the phone, build better technology, be more responsive, is the IRS.
So this is an investment in allowing the IRS to modernize and prepare for the wave of anticipated retirements in customer service agents that we`re already facing. The audit piece of this is focused on big corporations. And that`s exactly why you`re hearing Republicans who are beholden to those big corporations try to weaken and attack this piece.
The reality is the focus of the bill on the audit piece is that big corporations, it`s I`m cracking down on corporate tax cheats. And here`s how that math works. For every dollar that we invest in IRS enforcement of the most wealthy Americans and the largest corporations, with an army of lawyers and accountants to do their bidding, we can recover $5 in taxes that are owed to the rest of us. And ultimately, this kind of investment is going to let us have a more stable tax structure going forward.
RUHLE: Can you have that whiteboard, you can wipe it off? Because I want you to fill it out for me again, the next time you`re here and explain to me how come private equity firms are still allowed to cheat the system. But we will save that for another day, I want to take the time I have left to ask you what this bill is going to do to address climate change.
PORTER: Absolutely. This bill makes a historically important investment in green energy. And what this is going to do is allow the American economy to best our competitors at winning the green manufacturing jobs of the future, the country that is able to dominate on the world stage for the next 10, 50 years is going to be the country that figures out how to do that in a way that is not dependent on fossil fuel prices, not dependent on Petro dictators, not creating pollution that has to be cleaned up. It`s the company -- it`s the country that`s going to do it in a green way. And so this makes a $50 billion investment in technologies like wind and solar, that are going to help us do that manufacturing without the costs and the burden of the pollution that we`ve seen in some traditional manufacturing. So for me, this is about creating good high paying jobs and creating the foundation for more high paying jobs in the future.
RUHLE: All right, then Congresswoman Katie Porter, always good to see you, especially when you`re celebrating on a Friday night. Thanks for coming.
PORTER: Thank you.
RUHLE: When we come back, after decades of death threats, an author who spent years in hiding was stabbed on a stage how Salman Rushdie is doing tonight when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:57:50]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Much of the Islamic world remains in turmoil this morning over a book few Muslims have ever read. It`s called The Satanic Verses and several powerful Islamic leaders including Ruhollah Khomeini have sentenced author Salman Rushdie to death for blasphemy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: The last thing before we go tonight, a horrific attack. Famed author Salman Rushdie was stabbed on stage in western New York early this morning. Rushdie famously spent years in hiding and under police protection after an Iranian leader calls for his execution. NBC`s Andrea Mitchell has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS CHIEF FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It was a scene of chaos, a shocking attack and a nearly 150 year old artists retreat in upstate New York.
CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY SOUTH: I`m at the amphitheater. Presenter was just attacked on stage, I need EMS.
MITCHELL: Author Salman Rushdie stabbed on stage right before he was to give a lecture. Police say the suspect now in custody his 24-year-old Hadi Matar that he rushed on stage attacking Rushdie and his interviewer. Police saying Rushdie suffered stab wounds to his neck and abdomen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Really we don`t have any indication of a motive at this time.
MITCHELL: An anchor from our Pittsburgh NBC Station WPXI and I witness.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This guy rushes the stage and grabs him and starts either punching or stabbing him.
MITCHELL: (Inaudible) was in the audience and took this video after the attack.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All I remember seeing at that time was the assailants arm going up and down, up and down. It looked like Mr. Rushdie who began on the chair ended up on the floor.
MITCHELL: Rushdie he has lived with risk to his life ever since a fatwa or decree in 1989. By then Iran`s Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini that called for his murder Rushdie`s novel The Satanic Verses was banned in Iran, deemed blasphemous by the religious fundamentalists. He talks about the threat with NBC`s Kate Snow in 2020.
KATE SNOW, NBC HOST: You had to hide for what? A decade?
SALMAN RUSHDIE: I`ve always thought that the word hiding is very inexact because one of the things anyone who`s ever been surrounded by maximum security knows is that it`s unbelievably visible.
MITCHELL: Years ago, Iran`s government distance itself from the fatwa but threats to Rushdie continued. After being airlifted to a hospital Rushdie was undergoing surgery.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[00:00:11]
RUHLE: In an email to the New York Times this evening, Mr. Rushdie`s agent said the author has suffered serious injuries and he is currently on a ventilator and unable to speak.
NBC will continue to update you on his condition throughout the weekend. And tonight he is in our prayers. From all our colleagues across the networks of NBC News, I will sign off to now. Thanks for staying up late with us. I will see you on Monday night.