0 man that wants to see a house who is single. every time. i could have been a victim. i was an intended victim. that this sunday, the fbi's mar-a-lago search. >> upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly, without fear or favor. >> fbi agents remove 11 sets of classified documents from donald trump's florida home, including top secret files. after attacking the fbi for the search -- >> the fbi raid of president trump is a complete abuse and overreach of its authority. >> it is joe biden's doj, and they have weaponized this fbi at every turn. >> -- some republicans tone down their rhetoric. >> you would think there would be an adult in the republican room that would say, just calm down, see what the facts are. >> what's in those documents? why did mr. trump keep them? and was national security compromised? my guests this morning, democratic senator amy klobuchar and republican senator mike rounds. plus, what kind of legal jeopardy could the former president face? i'll talk to nbc news legal analysts chuck rosenberg and andrew weissmann. also, violent reaction -- >> subject armed. fired several shots at officers. >> a man apparently reacting to the fbi's search is killed by authorities after trying to attack the bureau's cincinnati office. will others be moved to violence? and the midterms outlook, from the kansas abortion vote -- >> i hope we inspire other states when they get the opportunity to vote to really think about a woman's choice. >> -- to a string of successes for president biden. signs that the expected republican red wave may be weakening. joining me for insight and analysis are eugene robinson, amy walter, matthew continetti, betsy woodruff swan and michael beschloss. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> good sunday morning. chuck todd is off today. even by donald trump's standards, it's been an extraordinary week. first came word of the fbi's search at mar-a-lago, for classified documents. while that prompted an it's about time reaction by some on the left, the noisiest voices on the right were calling for everything from the abolishment of the fbi to civil war. then on wednesday, the former president who once said pleading the fifth amendment was for mobsters and the guilty did so himself more than 400 times in a new york civil suit. the list of items removed by the fbi at mar-a-lago and revealed on friday included 11 sets of classified documents, five sets were top secret, three sets were secret and three were confidential. and there are still so many unanswered questions. what kind of legal jeopardy does the former president face, could he be in violation of the espionage act, what do we make of claims by mr. trump that he had already declassified the documents, will the calls for violence from the far right inspire more people like the man who attacked an fbi office in cincinnati and was eventually killed by authorities and how will an already divided country survive this latest stress test between mr. trump and the law? >> faithful adherence to the rule of law is the bedrock principle of the justice department and of our democracy. upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly, without fear or favor. under my watch, that is precisely what the justice department is doing. >> and joining me now is nbc news justice and intelligence correspondent ken dilanian. ken, what do we know about the documents seized at mar-a-lago? >> good morning, andrea. the warrant tells us the fbi seized five sets of documents marked top secret. that means information that if disclosed would pose exceptionally grave danger to u.s. national security. but among that was one set marked top secret sensitive compartmented information, and as you know, andrea, from covering the intelligence community for a long time, that means information that is so secret, only a small group of people inside the u.s. government can see it, those who have a need to know. we're talking about things like cia -- names of cia sources in moscow or images from the most advanced spy satellites. this information was so sensitive that the fbi agents who took it out of mar-a-lago would have had to take it to a special facility. we're talking about the most protected secrets in the u.s. government. >> you have to even read them in a vault. so what about the urgency, the former president said he cooperated, they had to go with a search warrant, that's what has outraged so many people on the right. >> right, and people are asking, well, if it was so urgent, why did it take a year? it is becoming clear as we learned more about this investigation that the fbi only gradually came to learn that there was this extent of classified information sitting there at mar-a-lago, and there was a progression here. the national archives turned over 15 boxes of records, there was classified information in it, they referred it to the justice department, which began investigating, we know the top counterintelligence official was down in mar-a-lago meeting with trump officials in june, they handed over some documents and they were assured there were no classified documents left and they learned that may not be true which led them to serve the search warrant. >> we confirmed that they had an informant. so does it even matter if the documents were classified because the three potential crimes that were listed in the search warrant don't require the documents to be classified. >> exactly. that's getting lost here amid this debate about trump's defense he can declassify anything. none of these three statutes require that the information be classified. the doj's position is these are u.s. government documents, property of the government, not donald trump's, it is illegal to steal them and it is illegal to mutilate or conceal them to obstruct an investigation, and then you have the espionage act which requires an intent to harm the united states, which suggests that the fbi at least has suspicions about the motives in storing these documents. >> so, when might we hear something and how would they decide whether to even take the extraordinary step of indicting a former president. >> there is so much we don't know because we haven't seen that affidavit of probable cause or the fbi lays out the justification. there is a couple of possibilities here. one is that this was just about getting the documents back, the fbi has their documents, that's the end of it. another is that there were crimes committed here about the mishandling of information and we'll see a case go forward. and then a third most ominous possibility is it is something even worse that, about what was donald trump doing with those documents, why did he have them there, some of the documents would be worth billions of dollars to our adversaries, andrea. >> alarming, obviously to national security officials. ken dilanian, thank you for bringing us up to speed. and joining me now is democratic senator amy klobuchar of minnesota, who serves on the judiciary committee. senator klobuchar, welcome back to "meet the press." >> thanks, andrea. great to be back on. >> it is good to see you. so let me ask you, what is your reaction to what was found in mar-a-lago, the search warrant, and, of course, the boxes of material including classified material? >> this is very serious, andrea. and my first reaction is to stand with the men and women of the fbi who are simply doing their jobs. what was found in that -- in mar-a-lago, we don't know exactly what's in those documents, but what we do know is it rose to the level of a search warrant which a federal judge approved. we do know they were searching for classified material, things that fell under one of the statutes they used in that search warrant was the espionage act. another one was that you can't destroy federal documents or you can't take federal documents out of secure locations. as a senator, i know when i look at the classified documents, i've got to go in a special room, andrea. i can't even wear my fitbit. you can't bring staff with you. and that's because these documents not only contain our nation's top secrets, but because there are countries that would do us harm, do harm to our own citizens, we don't want them to get a hold of them in any way, take photos or anything, they can reverse engineer them and figure out who the sources are, what the confidential information is. that's why it is so important that these documents remain in safe locations. and mar-a-lago, where you can check out croquet sets and tennis rackets and golf clubs, that's not one of them. >> do you think that they could have done this cooperatively, that they could have just used a subpoena? why take the unprecedented step of going in, with fbi agents on a surprise search? >> as attorney general garland has explained, someone of just utmost credibility and integrity, the justice department tried to negotiate this. we now know this from multiple sources, it has been reported, for months, they tried to negotiate with the trump lawyers about what was going on, and, in fact, now we're learning from reporting from "the new york times" that they actually had been told there were no classified documents in his home. and now we learn another story, and there must be people that are giving the justice department information that they knew that those documents were still there, that is why it rose to the level of a search. now, remember, this isn't a criminal prosecution, no charges have been filed. but what really happened here was a judge looked at this and said, yeah, there is evidence, enough evidence to warrant a search warrant to go in there and retrieve those documents that are of high national security classification. these are the nation's secrets. >> this has all been unprecedented. do you believe if the attorney general decides that crimes have been committed that it should take the incredible step of indicting a former president of the united states? >> andrea, it's not my place to -- i don't have all the evidence. this is going to be up to the justice department to make a decision about what happened here, why it happened, and if it rises to the level of a crime. i will say in america, we know as a great man once said, the law is king, the president isn't king. and i would add to that, the former president isn't king. everyone has to follow the laws. >> let me ask you about some of the outrage from elected republicans. some have called for civil war. some have said attack the fbi. some of your own colleagues have had very strong rhetoric. what do you think? >> this concerns me so much, andrea. we already saw from the insurrection, the effect that donald trump's language, that he has so many people out there that will just follow him and he feeds on that, and he sends out messages to them. look at what just happened in cincinnati. one of his followers who had taken part in the insurrection tried to kill people, fbi agents, and then there was a major security problem, he ends up getting killed, the whole thing goes down. this is the kind of things that result when you've got a president that attacks law enforcement and attacks the law. i thought in the old days republican party used to stand with law enforcement. and i hope some of them do today because this kind of rhetoric is very dangerous to our country. these are career men and women that are simply doing their job, their boss was actually, christopher wray was appointed by donald trump. and that's why we have the fbi director oftentimes their terms go between republican and democratic administrations because it is a career appointment. and that piece of it is so important for people to understand, that this is beyond politics, they're simply doing their jobs, and we have to let them do their jobs. >> what about the political impact, though, donald trump is fund-raising on this as are other republicans. do you think this would rally the republican base and hurt democrats in the midterms? >> all i'm focused on right now from a political standpoint is what we have gotten done. and that's an incredible amount of work. everything from the inflation reduction act, i think when you look at what democrats are talking about at home, we're talking about bringing down costs for people by taking on the pharmaceutical companies. yes, this is going on simultaneously. and that's because justice doesn't stop. justice department has to do their jobs. but at the same time, i know in minnesota, what people are talking about at the cafes. they're looking at the gas prices which, by the way, have gone down every single day for nearly two months. they're looking at the fact that finally we have been willing to take on the pharmaceutical companies. that we're going to start making semiconductor chips in america today that we need for everything from our cell phones to our cars. they're still talking about ukraine and the fact that we got 99 to 1, the president was able to push through the treaty that allows finland and sweden, matters in minnesota, to be part of nato. they're talking about standing with our veterans when we have got those horrible issues of so many of them getting sick and by being located next to burn pits and how the republicans messed around with that. we have a lot of things to talk about politically as we go into midterms where we are delivering for people, and have people's backs. and so that is what i believe is the focus, delivering for people, bringing down costs for families, and we believe this is a separate matter. this is for the justice department. and why does it get political? when the republicans make it political. when you've got the president out there on truth social, the same guy that, by the way, taped in georgia saying to the secretary of state, hey, get me 11,000 more votes. americans don't like when people are messing around with their elections. and so if it gets political at all, it is because he is making it so. >> thank you very much, senator klobuchar. thanks for being on "meet the press." >> great to be on, andrea. thank you. and joining me now is republican senator mike rounds of south dakota. he serves on the armed services and foreign relations committees. senator rounds, welcome back to "meet the press." >> thanks. i appreciate the opportunity to visit this morning. >> well, we're really happy to have you here. so earlier this week you said the fbi search must be justified and that you had serious questions about the integrity of the justice department. having seen what they retrieved, including all these classified documents, has that answered your question about the need for them to go in? >> i think it brings more questions, and i think it is important that we recognize that there are -- there is more information to be released yet. i think releasing the affidavit would help. at least that would confirm that there was justification for this raid. but, remember, this is also a case of where we're going to have more questions as they continue to develop as they look through the information, the material that they have garnered at mar-a-lago. perhaps they will share some of what their concern was, they'll share a little bit about the reason for going in and doing it this way. there will be a question about whether or not they did exhaust, as attorney general garland said, all other means to do this rather than making this unprecedented move on the home of a former president. this is a -- this is a very historic attempt and a challenge really in -- with regard to looking at a former president and whether or not they want to bring any kind of charges against him. this is a change and this is something that will go down in history and it will be studied for years to come. but in the meantime, i think most republicans would prefer to look right now with the 2022 midterms coming up, we much would prefer to focus on what the policies are right now that are hurting our economy, and as my friend amy klobuchar said, they want to talk about what they think is the right direction to go, and clearly here in south dakota, where i'm from, i went to a street dance last night, i'll tell you what, the folks in ft. pierce, south dakota, are talking about why gas prices are still high, what the cost of hamburger is, they're talking about why in the world we want to have 87,000 new bureaucrats in the irs out chasing down and trying to audit them, and those are the types of things that they're learning about, those are the things that they're scratching their head on, and that's the focus that i think democrats would prefer not to have right now, and if they can get to the former president, with all the popularity he's gaining and all of the support he's getting from his supporters right now, if they could get him to announce right now in the race, they would love to have that because that would take all the air out of the atmosphere right now and the challenges that they face with regard to the economy at this time. >> well, let me play some of the rhetoric, some of the comments, by some of your colleagues about the search. and ask you about it on the other side. >> i know doing this 90 days before an election wreaks of politics. >> i think it is an attack on the rule of law. this is the fbi being used as a political weapon against your opponents. >> we should be alarmed at the way that the department of justice and the fbi have gone after someone. >> doesn't the fact that so much was found, including classified documents, when the president and his lawyer had affirmed according to "the new york times" that they had turned everything over, doesn't that justify a search, unannounced search? for months and months they tried to get cooperation, didn't they take every step they could have taken? >> i think the last part of your question is probably very important. i think it would be good for the justice department to release some of the information about the extraordinary steps or the steps they did take to try to cooperate with the former president. i also think this will bring into question one constitutional issue that has not been talked about, and that is whether or not a president can declassify or classify certain items. i think constitutionally back in 1988 there was a supreme court decision u.s. navy versus egan in which they actually talked about whether or not a -- a president could classify and declassify and it never really has been litigated, but it appears a president can classify or perhaps declassify information. and if that's the case, then the question would be, and i think it will be litigated as this moves forward, whether or not that was completed while the president was in the white house at that time. and i think that will be part of the discussion moving forward. in the meantime, yeah, there is concern out there and believe me, republicans out there are questioning why in the world are you going after a former president right now, but you didn't go after other individuals who clearly had classified documents or information that was sensitive and you did not do that in the previous administrations? >> in this case, some of the information was compartmentalized and you know that's the most secret, that includes sources and methods and you have to be in a vault to see it, so in any case those documents should not have been at mar-a-lago in the basement. but the classification issue is going to be litigated most likely as you point out, but in this case, the potential crimes listed on the warrants, those three crimes don't require there to have been classified documents. it just requires these papers that could damage national security to be inappropriately held. >> and as i said earlier, we do have more questions. and, look, i'm not one of the individuals out there that says that you immediately attack the fbi or the justice department. i think this is very important that you provide them with the opportunity to lay out their case. but i think it is very important, long-term, for the justice department, now that they have done this, that they show that this was not just a fishing expedition, that they had -- that they had due cause to go in and to do this, that they did exhaust all other means, and if they can't do that, then we have got a serious problem on our hands. if they are able to do that, and to come forward, they should do that as quickly as they can, and they should share that with the american people, because this is a time in which with regard to the institutions in this country, we want the american people to have faith in their institutions, we want them to see that they're not -- that they're not political, and that they're not being politicized particularly during an election year. but, you know, at this point, i think it is very important that -- i'm hoping that if they actually did this and that they recognized how serious this was, that they did have their act together before they went in and did this and that it was not a fishing expedition. it is up to them to be able to share with the american public a logic behind what they did, the facts they had, what caused it, and i think releasing that affidavit would be important, but i think -- i think attorney general garland really does have a responsibility not just to take accountability for it, but to share with the american people why they did this. we still have more questions than we have answers. >> let me ask you quickly, given that they did take all this material, boxes of material, and classified documents as well, and given how casual he was about securing documents, that's been well established when he was president, do you think that should disqualify him from being president again and would you vote for him if he runs? >> i'll keep my powder dry with regards to your last question. i think right now we're going to focus on the 2022 election. we want to retake the house. we definitely want to retake the united states senate. i think in doing that, our goal is to focus on what is going on right now with the american people, we're going to focus on the fact that inflation is still over 8.5%. we are still talking about gdp, which has been going down. as you know, sharing breakfast with the former chairman of the federal reserve, anytime you got two quarters in a row, you are in a recession. we want to see us get out of that recession and we want to see gas prices come down. they're still a buck and a half higher than when joe biden took office. those are not good policies to run on for democrats. we need to focus on that, and as we get past that, and get into the 2024, i think the republican will be well positioned, but let's get past the 2022 election first. >> and we're not in a recession yet, but we'll wait and see what does happen and we really want to thank you. very good you come on. >> two quarters tell you differently than that. >> that's out of date. out of date. even according to republican economists. in any case. when we come back, how much legal jeopardy does former president trump face? i'll talk to two of our top legal experts to break it all down when we return. stay with us.