>> yes, that is basically it. i don't know if he wanted to be there while trump was making his speech about the change of staff. >> phil rucker, as condensed as they are, all of our print colleagues at the white house are writing the lookback piece about the reince priebus era, all six months of it. and i know you contend he was something less than a chief of staff in full always? >> you know, yeah, i think that is exactly right. look, this is an establishment republican who became close to donald trump over the course of the campaign. tried to help integrate the party in the trump world. tried to do it in washington to help trump govern and pass his agenda on capitol hill. but he was beset time and time again by the kind of chaos and disorder that has really defined all of trump's enterprises,
including this white house. it was so remarkable, that reince priebus was so belittled and demeaned at work, the backbiting was so intense and vicious. i talked to one staffer, the president said that reince priebus was weak, he can't get the job done and of course all has come to an end. >> as one politico put it together, how much change do you expect? >> well, i think that is the critical question. and i would draw your attention to one point, brian, i had a conversation tonight with a source who said look, anthony scaramucci is still going to be reporting to the president. he will still have oval office privileges, as far as we know at
this point and what that means is that the chief staff still doesn't have that emboldened status of having most of the top officials report to him. will that change? will john kelly push for that? i think it will be a critical question, that could determine if this ship is righted. it was very tense today at the white house. we had a sense that something may be brewing as phil points out, the president for several days if not for weeks and months has questioned reince priebus's ability to be forceful on a whole host of issue. and he put reince priebus in charge of health care and was growing increasingly frustrated he was not seeing more action, more success on that front. it's our understanding that last night's vote was the death nell for preibus. >> all right, it doesn't get any heavier than that.
the lack of a successful agenda. he was supposed to be with his establishment republican contacts in charge of health care i just mentioned. that of course has gone down in a humbling defeat. he has not been able to keep the trains running on time. this is a white house that never has a coherent message week to week because they're so often derailed by the president's tweets, his whims, he went after one of his most favorite generals, then, we have the departure of the shortest tenured chief of staff in white house history. >> what kind of week was it? we want to tell the viewers tonight we'll have a look back at where we have been since monday. it's a head-spinner. so josh, because we're talking about washington and a cabinet department where the number two will be in charge until the number one can be nominated and
not just any cabinet department. the folks who keep us safe, what are you hearing about a new secretary for the department of homeland security? >> well, we're hearing that you know, one of the rumors that is out there right now is there there may be some effort to try to shift attorney general jeff sessions over to this job because he is somebody who always had been thought of as more of an immigration enforcer anyway. but i don't know that that is viable in the senate given some of the rules that have been laid out there. the statements laid down by various senators in the last couple of days saying they're not interested in having more confirmation hearings for attorney general. that would throw them obviously into a panic, the ouster of bob mueller, for the time being we're probably looking at an acting chief over there until things settle down. >> so kristen welker, as we digest the idea of the attorney general going to the job of homeland security, the bells
that it would set off. and scaramucci, it is roundly contended that the kind of barnyard language he would use that would make a longshoreman blush, would make an instant dismissal by any other president. he won, he is still there. >> not only is he still there, brian, but there is a sense behind the scenes that the president is okay with what happened. that perhaps he was in some ways expressing part of what the president feels at least as it relates to reince priebus. steve bannon's job, it seems, at this point is still safe. but what has already divided an already fractured west wing, what i mean is you have some
people behind scenes who are brushing off what happened, others laughing about what happened but other people who are deeply upset and bothered by it who say frankly, someone who uses that type of language, someone who attacks his fellow colleagues should not be allowed to continue to serve in the west wing at the pleasure of the president. and so i think it's created more discord. now, can general kelly come in and change that? can he smooth over some of these very rough edges that exist right now? that will be a real challenge, i think, because there is a lot of concern and paranoia among staffers that they could be the next to go. it is worth noting that reince priebus was one of donald trump's remaining links to the party. you have sean spicer, who is out. you have katie walsh who was the first rnc connected high level staffer to leave and another lower level communications staffer who left just last week.
so you have four departures all connected to the rnc, the president's connection to that branch of the republican party growing thinner by the day. >> mr. rucker, one question was answered tonight. that is what the president will do about the russia sanctions. they floated out the idea he would not sign on them even though they passed through the house and senate with margins you don't see any more. >> that is right, the answer is the president will sign the legislation. we got word through the white house that sarah sanders, the press secretary, just an hour ago, the congress really forced the president's hand because this is a veto-proof majority. even if the president were to do a veto of this bill it would really be a symbolic gesture because the congress of course would override it. >> jonathan, we don't deal in absolutes, but how close to the worst week ever in the white house did we just witness?
>> that is -- this is up there. this is a week that has seen him as mentioned go after his attorney general, that has seen the health care bill collapse in a humbling defeat that has seen a lot of republicans suddenly act like they're not afraid of the president any more. they're not going to act on his behalf for loyalty or out of fear. and now we have scaramucci coming in, clearly shaking things up. he is sort of the president's id, if you will, he seemed not only that he survived this controversy but seems offended in the white house, but that could change if kelly comes in on monday and attempts to right the ship. but at the end of the day this is still the president. it all emanates from donald trump. there will only be significant changes in this white house if he is willing to make them. and until he does and of course this is the russia cloud hanging over all of this. there may be other competitors for worst week ever. >> after a long day for the good
folks who bring us the first draft of history our thanks to our panel of journalists, kristen welker, philip rucker, and jonathan lamiere. coming up, how is the ouster of reince priebus sitting with the gop? we'll ask one strategist when we continue. hi.
sensing your every move and automatically adjusting to help you stay effortlessly comfortable. there. i can even warm these to help you fall asleep faster. does your bed do that? oh. i don't actually talk. though i'm smart enough to. i'm the new sleep number 360 smart bed. let's meet at a sleep number store. or a little internet machine? [ phone ringing ] hi mom. it makes you wonder...
shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. [ laughing ] so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. call or go to xfinitymobile.com introducing xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. on behalf of the entire senior staff, and around you, mr. president, we thank you for the opportunity and the blessing you have given us to serve your agenda and the american people
and we're continuing to work very hard every day to accomplish those goals. >> it was later dubbed the dear leader meeting. that was reince priebus at the president's first full meeting of the cabinet, thanking mr. trump, for the opportunity and the blessing to work for the administration. joining us by telephone to react to today's news, msnbc political analyst steve schmidt, also happens to be former chief strategist to john mccain, former 2008 campaign. steve, we have been thinking of you as this news has pulled out. give me the basics on the presidency tonight. >> well, it's in very bad shape. and listening to reince priebus on the audio, what it shows, brian, is that excellence and syphocancy is not necessarily job reassurance in the presidency.
we have the lowest numbers in the modern history of polling at 35, 36, 37%, wherever it may be. we have complete and total chaos in the west wing. and really, with each new dawn, there is another assault. another attack on the dignity of the institution of the office of the president of the united states. and so increasingly -- and i try not to be alarmist about this as we talk about it on a daily basis, but we're approaching a real hour of crisis in our democracy and in our civics. in the life of a democratic republic. and you think back to that story
from outside the declaration of independence convention, you know, where benjamin franklin walks out and he is asked by a woman on the street and says dr. franklin, what have we achieved here? he said the republic, madam, if you can keep it. i think what we see increasingly is a level of dysfunction that is profoundly injuring the institutions, to the democratic norms that are necessary to be sustained in a functioning 21st century democratic society. >> steve, as we always say, the heroes of watergate were for the most part, republicans. at least the surprise as it unspooled. and the surprise in the end. are you looking for that same thing of course coming off last night. murckowski, collins and mccain
in the senate, are you looking for the republicans to change their behavior and comments? >> of course, look, we have two parties in this country right now. we may well see a real independent candidacy in 2020, but when we look at the two parties right now the party that controls washington where members who i don't question their sincerity and their oath-taking where they swore the oath to defend the constitution of the united states. but the norms of a democratic society and culture that have been passed down generation to generation in this country are under assault by this administration. and where is the point where republican office holders stand up and say enough is enough with the chaos and with the
degradations of our most important institutions. and specifically, how important was it that mitch mcconnell was able to put together the vote of something that had the support of 13% of americans that not one of those senators knew how much it cost. how many people would lose their insurance. in fact, not one of them had any idea what the legislation would do who voted in the affirmative. and so as we continue on in this administration and you look ahead to the elections in 2018, what is increasingly clear is with this collapse of thinking and policy making and intellectualism that is attached to conservatism in the republican party, will there be a political price to pay for it?
and i suspect there will be a heavy political price to pay for it before all is said and done. >> a somber note, thank you, steve schmidt with us tonight. we'll take another break. when we come back some people who know this new incoming white house chief of staff, former marine, four-star general. how will he get along with the boss? what can we expect? that and more when "the 11th hour" continues. "got a minute? not for me, for you." new aveeno®... ...positively radiant® 60 second in shower facial. works with steam to reveal... ...glowing skin in just one minute. aveeno® "naturally beautiful results®"
and wake up ready to perform. only exclusive retailers carry tempur-pedic. find yours at tempurpedic.com.
fall, we are so happy and fortunate to have with us three men who know the general, retired four-star barry mccaffrey, decorated vietnam veteran, and another highly decorated veteran, u.s. army retired, jack jacobs, a recipient of the medal of honor. also returning to our broadcast, the former chief of staff at the cia and pentagon, jeremy bash. so general, you and general kelly were both in the four-star club, that is a very small membership. how did you come to know him? and tell him who is this man? >> i have known him over the years, in seminars with him, and doing interviews. this is one of the finest people i ever met in my life. in terms of integrity, competence, good judgment.
so i think the good news is for the american people. i would also point out. i heard a couple of colleagues talking about his lack of congressional or political experience. this fellow was seven years working congress for the u.s. marine corps. so he is intimately aware of how the legislative process works. and then finally, he not only served in europe and afghanistan, and all over latin america, he has been the military assistant to two of the finest public servants we ever had. bill gates and secretary leon panetta. so i think this guy would be better off parachuting into raqqah, syria, than going into this white house. but it's good news for the american people. >> general, you always have a way with words. colonel jacobs, in addition to being a new englander, his accent will give him away, but we should have american people know him for his service.
he is a gold star father, he lost a son serving in the military. he has another son, why do you believe he is suited for this job? >> well, he is intelligent, hard working, diligent, a strong patriot, a great american. but i don't think that this matters about the white house, the chief of staff has to be a chief of staff. anybody who has an opportunity to work around him will leave the place in chaos, jared kushner doesn't report to anybody, goes directly to the president. bannon is stuck to the president like the lip on the hull of a ship. scaramucci already said he reports to the president. at the end of the day, general kelly is either going to have to accept a diminished role as the chief of staff or he will have to be frustrated and have to leave. >> jeremy bash, during your
time, i know general kelly became a military officer that you worked with the closest. >> we worked together and traveled all around the world together. i want to echo what is said, he is a great american, maybe one of the greatest, i think the point stands even if we had the greatest american serving as the white house chief of staff, if the president doesn't empower that person and insist on order, and john kelly is a student of the chain of command, and order, the president will not be able to achieve his agenda, and i don't know -- john kelly and nobody can do it. i talked to his friends, his former boss, secretary leon panetta, we know he is highly capable and intelligent. we're praying for him, and want the president to empower him now to bring order to that very unordered place.
>> well, i hope a lot of americans see and hear what you gentlemen just said about him tonight. those three words, chain of command will come up tonight something tells me. so general mccaffrey, something tells me today, just before your appearance tonight on this broadcast, north korea fired off another icbm. we have information where they straightened out the journey of this missile today. it was aloft for 40 minutes to show us where had it had a different trajectory it could reach within the lower 48 of the united states. make that 49, make it 50, actually, including alaska and hawaii. so general, as fraught a circumstance as we have seen in the modern era certainly, what to do about this? >> there is only a bit of good news here. north korea is essentially a criminal regime. they're not zealots. they're not ideological, they're not religious.
so the preservation of the regime is the only thing that counts. having said that, this is an unstable regime with quirky lad who shoots his generals for not applauding loudly enough when he gives a speech. so we don't think he has a very rational bubble of decision-making around him. i don't think there is any good news. we're not going to strike north korea for trying to take out their nuclear capability. not going to happen. the chinese are not going to strangle north korea economically. not going to happen. they're not going to strangle their nukes, so we have to build our missiles and ships at sea. >> i love hearing the analysts saying we need to strike them pre-emptively, i want to say show me the target list you have in mind. >> i think if one assumes this is a continuing criminal
enterprise, one way to deal with them, we're going to have to go get together with china and look at the criminal enterprise's existence. otherwise, they will continue to develop the capability to strike the united states. we're not going to scorch their earth, with artillery strike distance, you have to make the deal with them. we kicked the can down the road so long this is the only route. >> and jeremy bash, you have the last word, we talked about perhaps a crisis would be the test of this administration no one was hoping to see. >> yeah, the chairman of the joint chiefs had to correct the president given the transgender policy, not on the substance, but the manner in which it was given. when the president communicates an order it should communicate through the chain of command, that was not done this week and in a real crisis that could cost
american security and american lives. >> general barry mccaffrey, jack jacobs, jeremy bash, thank you all gentlemen on a friday night. we certainly appreciate it. coming up, another white house staffer was resigning, remember sean spicer's exit, that was last friday. think of all that happened this week, we will when "the 11th hour" continues.
best people in the world. >> he knows people. we figured it's friday night. we have to look at how we got here and where we have been. so we put together a great conversation group for this. joining our conversation, pulitzer prize winning presidential author and historian, the author of most recently, bush 41, john meecham, boston globe columnist and the joint chair with us, and author and friend of the broadcast. because a man from kenosha, because the man who is a friend of yours is in the white house, i want to start with what reince priebus's life has looked like this last six months. what his departure looks like to you today. i would love to hear it.
>> i do think of reince priebus as a friend. but i think the story is tragic, because he made a series of decisions and rationalizations, and enabled and empowered donald trump. and even though a lot of us warned him this would end badly i don't think anybody thought it would end in this torrent of profanity and humiliation that we have seen. you know, reince priebus says he is going to try to keep this classy and above board. but the reality is when you watch the trajectory of the first six months of this presidency, it's not because reince priebus was a bad chief of staff, it's because you have a bad president. everything starts and ends with donald trump. and unfortunately, despite what a great american general kelly is he is going to inherit that same dysfunction. at the center of everything that is happening is donald trump. by the way, the big question i have is what is the really defining move of last week?
was it the appointment of general kelly or was it the appointment of the mooch, the mooch who is obviously an unhinged, he has been described as the president's id, if that is the future of the presidency, then i don't think the president is going to be able to turn it around. >> as i said, general mccaffrey, the launch of a missile today sharpens the mind and causes you if you're at all worried about such things and responsive to such things, it asks you about the most fearsome arsenal in the world. >> i was talking to a very senior republican lawmaker last week who said he was more concerned about what he called the competence deficit in the white house, that he wasn't even worried about russia. and he was worried in 2016.
i do think general kelly is good news on that front. but we all know history is made up of the unexpected. and every white house comes in thinking that they can master events and events nearly always master them. that is the way the world works. as far as general kelly goes, i don't know if he knows the story, but exactly 30 years ago in 1987, when don reagan was on his way out as reagan's chief of staff, ronald reagan decided to call the great baker of tennessee, when the president called to offer him the chief of staff job. and senator baker was at the zoo with his grandchildren. and his wife said, mr. president, he can't come to the phone, he is at the zoo. and the president said well, wait until he sees the zoo i have in mind for him. and the reagan white house looks
like the kennedy school compared to this. >> indira, if the arrival of a marine four-star means these are better days ahead, do you think the bill for dysfunction kind of came due this past week? >> look, i think it's all a great idea that general kelly is supposed to come in and restore order. but it's like the idea of rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic when it is already half way under water. i mean, it really doesn't make any sense. there is no amount of order that he can possibly restore to a dysfunctional white house where everybody is infighting with one another, when it's the president himself who is encouraging this infighting, who is encouraging scaramucci to give an interview like he did, apparently with his blessing he gave these insults about reince priebus to ryan liz of the new yorker. when you have somebody at the top who is allowing his staff
members to act like contestants on "the apprentice," then one of them will get axed at the end of the week. i don't think how general kelly will try to make order, when you can't make order, it's like herding cats with a giant lion at the top of the pen. it absolutely can't happen. >> we'll be right back after this.
can be signs of a life-threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. don't take botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. for a limited time, you can qualify for two treatments at no cost. stand up to chronic migraine. talk to a headache specialist today. they should have approved health care last night, but you can't have everything. boy, oh boy. they have been working on that one for seven years. let obamacare implode. >> when we win on november 8th -- and elect a republican congress we will be able to immediately repeal and replace obamacare. have to do it.
i know that we're all going to make a deal on health care, that is such an easy one. >> we're going to take care of everyone. we're going to take care of people and people are going to get it so good. >> that was too easy, let's talk about what happened last night. in the well of the senate it came down to one very dramatic moment. senator john mccain comes in and raises his right arm, broken in three places in north vietnam. senator schumer waves off any verbal reaction. but with that it was done. seven years of talk about repeal and replace done in one hand gesture. our panel remains with us and we'll go to charlie sykes. charlie, much was made of that moment of course a moment of moral courage, a man staring down his own mortality, yet again not the first time in his last. let's talk about the courage of murckowski of alaska, and collins of maine, because
without those two women there is no moment like that no john mccain. my question to you, is that kind of courage for cheering them on going to be contagious? >> well, you don't know, you made the point to ask and others have as well that frankly it will have to be republicans or conservatives that will have to rein in the trump administration. it was barry goldwater that told nixon he needed to go. but john mccain not only cast a courageous vote, but probably provided cover for i don't know how many other senators who knew that this was a deeply unpopular flawed piece of legislation that the process, the policy, the politics were all very flawed. and that he provided them some cover. but you know we will see. i do get a sense that this was a turning point this week. lisa murckowski standing up against the threat from the
interior secretary. the push back against the talk of getting jeff sessions. passing the russian legislation, the pushback on the transgender order. you almost got the sense that republicans are realizing okay, this is their moment they have to push. >> so john meecham, i have to ask if there is anything as parallel to anything in talk and campaigning, any political party that has had house, senate, white house going into a vote so elemental? >> i can't think of a specific one. there are broad trends that that unfolds. the republicans growing uncomfortable with deficits, that kind of thing after campaigning against government for so many years. but in terms of a dramatic moment and really -- a window into a party in crisis, we talk
a lot about the democrats, identity crisis and rightly. but you know, there is a connection here between reince priebus's departure and the failure of the repeal vote, i think. which is that the republican party essentially sold its soul to donald trump and the check has bounced. and they're going to have to figure out what to do. >> indira, you get the last 30 seconds, what now for the trump administration? >> i think that john made the excellent point. it's really what republicans are going to do to stop him in congress. we already heard from chuck grassley saying no, we're not going to put in a new attorney general. and graham saying we're going to put in legislation to stop you from firing mueller. but i don't think it's going to stop this president from taking those kinds of actions. so we'll see if any other republican can be able to do what john mccain did, and
murckowski and collins, we'll see if anybody takes that kind of dramatic step to stand up to donald trump? >> and that sound you heard was the air coming out of charlie's lungs. charlie wrote books about this, copies of which we'll sell all during the fall. to john, indira, thank you for staying up late with us on a friday night after the week we have had. coming up, it was a week where so many things happened, you would be forgiven for not remembering it all. that is where we come in after this.
wahhhh... right. in. your. stomach! watch this!... >>yikes, that ice cream was messing with you, wasn't it? try lactaid, it's real ice cream, without that annoying lactose. lactaid. it's the milk that doesn't mess with you. chances are, the last time yoyou got robbed.an, i know-- i got a loan 20 years ago, and i got robbed. that's why i started lendingtree-- the only place you can compare up to 5 real offers side by side, for free. it's like shopping for hotels online, but our average customer can save twenty thousand dollars. at lendingtree, you know you're getting the best deal. so take the power back and come to lendingtree.com, because at lendingtree when banks compete, you win.
attorney general. and in a rally in ohio, the president declared himself the most presidential since lincoln. that day senator john mccain flew back to washington and delivered a dramatic speech on health care. on wednesday, the president banned transgender service members in the armed forces. he did it later on twitter. the armed forces later told the members there was no policy they knew of. last night, a huge defeat of the health care bill after seven years of the repeal-and-replace rallying cry. and then later, during a speech, the president said they should not be so soft on them. later, the president said they don't advocate rougher treatment of those they arrest. then north korea launched another missile, donald trump
encourages everyone to have of an open dialogue about issues facing children today. as you know mrs. trump has traveled the country and world talking to children about their well being, healthy living and the importance of responsible online behavior with her be best initiative. her platform centers around visiting organizations hospitals and schools. and she would be open to visiting the i promise school in akron. the i promise school is the school lebron james opened, who in an interview said he would not sit across from the president. the other part of the statement i find notable, ana, responsible online behavior coming on the heels of a tweet the president of the united states sent out insulting someone. ana. >> exactly. i also want to ask you, boris, about this familiar face. someone who used to to work in the white house apparently spotted boarding air force one. what can you tell bus hope hicks showing up? >> yeah, that's right, the former director of communications for the white house making a surprise appearance today, not only in
new jersey but also boarding air force one apparently on the way to the president's rally in in ohio. you recall earlier in year in february she testified before congress she told white lies on behalf of president trump. one day later she announced her resignation. within a month she left the white house. it's surprising to see her on the landscape again. but we know that president trump occasionally even officials that have left his campaign or left the administration he often keeps in contact with them. corey lewandowski is another example. we'll see if hope appears on stage tonight. >> i find it interesting because i i remember a few weeks ago the president hinted at maybe she wants to come back to the white house. perhaps more to that. thank you, as you continue to cover ohio where the president will be speaking in a couple of hours with the back drop of the drama around lebron james and the first lady's public opposition to her husband's tweet coming hours before that rally in ohio. lebron james 'home state. let's talk about it with cnn
The latest news and information from around the world with host Ana Cabrera.
but, you know, the president uses the bully pulp it on a number of occasions to bully people and not to unite and bring the country together. and so this is just one example of that. and i don't expect le stop doing it. >> do you think he is going to be able to let melania's statement roll off his back heading into the rally, knowing he doesn't let go easily the slightest critique. >> we have seen him in condition contrast with another family member, ivanka trump saying the media is not the enemy of the people. we have seen melania have her own voice in the administration. draw contrast with her husband. we will see what his reaction is tonight. he has a rally where he is in campaign mode. we know what that looks like. >> and he is supposed to be there for a republican candidate, kathryn, because this is a district trump won by 11 points. and now look at the latest polls when you look at the republican versus the democrat here, the
>> i think of conor lamb, in pennsylvania. >>. white house aides tell us that president trump is doing more rally. the third in this week in three states. they believe it lifts his mood and provides distraction from the russia investigation. do you think that's true. >> i think this is absolutely about playing the greatest hits. what we should expect is lots of crooked hillary, fake news media, trump is besieged and persecuted by the russia hoax. black athletes are unamerican. all of that. because that distracts from unflattering news coming out about trump himself, about his former campaign chairman, paul march. that trial is in the news. i'm sure he doesn't want more attention paid to that. or if there is attention it's the sense of it's unfair and it's a witch hunt and they're going after me. the campaign rallies are not about supporting any particular candidate which is ostensibly the objective here.
though we know that mueller is looking at tweets and the body of evidence in this investigation just earlier this week he was you know seen as directing his attorney general to end this probe entirely. which speaks volumes about where the president is. he is also trying to win a pr argument, kind of in the court of public opinion on this. trying to say, you know, look i'll cooperate with mueller. we really know how much legal exposure he could be. >> ladies good to have you with us. thank you very much kathryn, katlyn. nice to see you. she was hiding in plain sight, a suspected spy who had access to the state department and secret service caught meeting with russian bell. how she got away with working inside the u.s. embassy in moscow for more than a decade. we'll discuss. >> oh, no. oh, no. oh, god. >> caught on tape. proof of why it's never a
-we're in a small room. what?! -welcome. -[ gasps ] a bigger room?! -how many of you use car insurance? -oh. -well, what if i showed you this? -[ laughing ] ho-ho-ho! -wow. -it's a computer. -we compare rates to help you get the price and coverage that's right for you. -that's amazing! the only thing that would make this better is if my mom were here. what?! an unexpected ending! i couldn't catch my breath. it was the last song of the night. it felt like my heart was skipping beats. they said i had afib. what's afib? i knew that meant i was at a greater risk of stroke. i needed answers. my doctor and i chose xarelto® to help keep me protected from a stroke. once-daily xarelto®, a latest-generation blood thinner significantly lowers the risk of stroke in people with afib not caused by a heart valve problem.
warfarin interferes with at least 6 of your body's natural blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor. for afib patients well managed on warfarin, there is limited information on how xarelto® compares in reducing the risk of stroke. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of stroke. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can to help protect yourself from a stroke. talk to your doctor about xarelto®.
to help protect yourself from a stroke. [stomach gurgles] ♪when you have nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea... girl, pepto ultra coating will treat your stomach right. nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea.♪ try new pepto with ultra coating.
okay here a story ripped straight from the pages of a summer spy novel. a senior trump administration official tells cnn that a woman working for years at the u.s. embassy in moscow was caught red handed passing information to russian intelligence. we know she is a russian national the secret service hired more than a decade ago. she came under suspicion during a security review and fired last summer after officials discovered she had regular unthorsoned meetings with russian intelligence officials. cnn law enforcement analyst and former secret service agent jonathan wakro is joining us to discuss how big of a deal is this. >> this is a big deal. the secret service released a press statement stating that this video didn't have access to classified or secret information. that's true. the way that the u.s. embassy and consulates are set up there
is a bifurcating of information of information that can be accessed by foreign service nationals and those used by u.s. citizens working abroad as part of the diplomatic mission. i don't think that any classified information was ever leaked. >> but she had access to email, the intranet. how can they be sure? again we know that russia is fairly fikted right when it comes to cybersecurity. >> right. russia is playing the long game here of intelligence collection. they're in the targeting one specific piece of information they wanted from this woman. they wanted over a longer period of time information about the agents, the case work, budgeting, a lot of administrative stuff that may see deminimum must to some. but to a sophisticated russian intelligence collection gathering operation it's critical. it fits different pieces along their puzzle line to string together their
counterintelligence operations against u.s. assets not only in russia but worldwide. >> she is able to be there for teen years. she may not have information at her finger tips that they are concerned about as you spoke of, no classified information. >> abilitily. >> that she would have access to. she would know who is who get a lay of the land. >> this is a classic threat of the insider threat. the person that's a trusted betrayer. someone that has shone up every day, reporting shows that she was a quiet woman backup she was a mother, married. just went about her business every single day. she did interact with you know law enforcement sources as part of her job. where she was the -- remember, u.s. law enforcement has no authority in a foreign country. they have to rely on the host country to execute on law enforcement mission. she played the bridge between russian law enforcement and u.s. assets. that was part of her job. and that was disclosed by the
secret service. however, what other information was she giving? what other types of information was it, about upcoming casework, was it about agents that could potentially be you know recruited or targeted? personal information on those agents. ? individual married or not? again, it goes into the larger collection process that the russians are running around, you know, u.s. diplomatic endeavors worldwide. >> when you talk about the vulnerability that maybe has always existed because of that, just the nature of the work and the location of the work. are there safeguards to avoid this situation. >> there are. you have to -- how you deal with an insider threat you have to have access control to information. you have to have it very segmented and siloed especially in a foreign locale. information is off to the side. but complacency kills in this
time. he has been there more than ten years. they rotated in and out. she was the constant. so just that little bit, the drip, drip, drip of information that she was able to collect and potentially give over to intelligence services in russia, it's damaging. it's damaging to overall national security picture. >> thank you so much. jonathan. >> i appreciate it. >> good to have you with us. >> almost all undocumented immigrants living in the u.s. don't have health insurance. and that has some of them now waiting until they are on the brink of death to get emergency treatment. cnn's sanjay gupta takes a look at the crisis. >> ner literally pushing them themselves to the brink of death to get treatment. >> they are. >> am i overstating that? >> not at all.
to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $25 per dose with copay card.
at crowne plaza, we know business travel isn't just business. there's this. a bit of this. burke head. which is what we do. crowne plaza. we're all business, mostly.
crowne plaza. i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network.
we devoted a lot of coverage lately to the well being of undocumented immigrants coming into this country and the conditions they face when crossing the border. but those who have been in the united states for years face their own serious health concerns. and our chief medical correspondent dr. sanjay gupta has one mother's story. >> in order to really understand what's going on here you're going to need to suspend disbelief. lucia is dying. her lungs drowning in fluid. her electrolytes fluctuating which would willy and heart precariously close to shutting done. this 51-year-old mother has end stage renal decease. full on kidney failure.
>> the function of the kidney is to bilt filter blood of toxins and fluid. people on average live 10 to 14 days when kidneys stop working. to continue living you need a process to filter blood, which is a dialysis machine. >> for most that treats the. . but here is the thing lucia is allowed treatment only when she essentially arrives at death's door. the emergency medical treatment act of 1986 says hospitals in the united states must care for anyone with a medical emergency, regardless of the citizenship or ability to pay. but they are not obligated to prevent that emergency from happening in the first place. >> what is happening inside the body. >> for these patients, because they only come in once a week instead of the three times per week excess fluid stays in their body and goes into their runnings, into their legs.
separate from that the toxins nld up. one of the most important being potassium which at high levels makes the heart stop. >> this is no way to live. about as close to death as you can get. and what's more, research shows that treating patients with emergency dialysis versus standard dialysis is nearly four times more expensive because the patients like lucia are so much sicker when they come for treatment. >> they are literally pushing themselves to the brink of death. >> they are. >> to get this treatment. am i overstating that. >> not at all. >> there is no question it works. >> lucia. look at lucia now. after dialysis removed ten liters of fluid from her body. >> how are you feeling. >> right now i feel good. >> still, lucia is always worried. mostly about her family, especially her son alex. he watches his mother steadily decline every single week. this is their life.
>> how hard has this been on you -- on your family? >> it's been really hard. it's been really hard for my family. the worst is for my son. he worries about me. >> because just a few days from now, like clockworks lucia will once again go to precipice of death just so she can live. i'll tell you it's unclear how long lucia can carry on like this. week after week going to this precipice of death. a kidney transplant would improve life and cull down on health care costs. she is not eligible for that. she is eligible to donate her other organs whenever she passes. that is the reality of the situation for people like lucia. >> dr. gupta, thank you for that reporting. it became an iconic political blooper.
>> just cross this -- this open place. >> um-hum. >> more than 25 years after president bush seemed to marvel as a grocery store scanner president trump may have had a supermarket slip-up. we'll explain next in the newsroom. again. ♪ ooh, baby, do you know what that's worth? ♪ i want to believe it. [ claps hands ] ♪ ooh i'm not hearing the confidence. okay, hold the name your price tool. power of options based on your budget! and! ♪ we'll make heaven a place on earth ♪ yeah! oh, my angels! ♪ ooh, heaven is a place on earth ♪ [ sobs quietly ]
place. >> um-hum. >> you have to go where the code is. >> actually it's got a band. >> that was president george h. w. bush, of course in what became known as his infamiliarous grocery store scanner moment which is apparent for politicians seem out of touch. more than 25 years later president trump had his own supermarket slip-up talking about voter id. listen. >> we believe that only american citizens should vote in american elections. which is why the time has come for voter id. like everything else. you know if you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card. you need id. you go out and you want to buy anything, you need id. and you need your picture. >> the internet went wild on the
idea of needing id for groceries. inspiring mock ups of shopping identification cards. and this instagram post from the late show we card under 18 no groceries. well joining us niepow presidential cnn historian douglas brinkley. when you heard that did it bring back memories of bush and supermarket or are the overblown. >> i thought about george bush and he paid dearly. he tried to say i eat pork riends and play horse shoen a he was from a wealthy family. it makes him seem incredibly detached from everyday life. trump says even worse. it's not about quizzed on the price of bread or milk. it's just thinking you need an id to buy groceries in america. that's somebody that doesn't understand the american way, that every moment right now everybody is buying groceries without ids.
but it's the thing that refuse attention to he retract or say i'm out of touch or make a joke. instead i blames the critics. >> i mean he could have also made a clarification. maybe he was talking of buying alcohol at the grocery store. i don't know. but it seems kind of silly. but historically the little political slip-ups do have staying power as you point out. but look at the others. gerald ford biting in the tamale without eating a husk. and eating a flel cheese stake with cheese whizz and dan quail spelling potato with an e. >> add a little bit to the end. spell that again. add one little bit on the end. potato. how is it spelled? you're right phonetically but what else -- there you go.
all right. >> that kid was writing in cursive amgts. i mean what is it about the moments that stay in the public psyche doug. >> because bush 41 was a one termer and dan quail was a one-term vice president. all of us misspell words but if you are giving a lesson to school kids and misspell it lives eternally. wherever dan quail goes today people mention on daily basis. hey, potato man. it sticks to you. i think trump will get away with this. but there was a more menacing comment that trump made which is about voter registration-his desire to kind of stop disenfranchise voters trying to make this more of an id america. that doesn't go well with libertiarians people he has to court. and so it was a very muddled
moment of a difficult week for president trump. >> there is one president that he loves to compare himself to. and that would be abraham lincoln. here he is this week. >> i could be more presidential than any president in history except for possibly abe lincoln with the big hat. i don't know. abe. abe looked pretty presidential. what do you think? he is tough. i admit it abe lincoln is tough. but we love abe lincoln. >> do you think he holds lincoln out as a goal post of sorts? >> i know he has never read a book about abraham lincoln. i actually asked president trump when he got elected about presidents. and he said he never read a book or bioography of log innen. he just knows the cutout characteristic of linking with the beard and hot. that's what he reflects on. but i think he is being funny.
he knows donald trump that the big criticism of him is that he doesn't seem serious main. he blew it in helsinki. he doesn't seem to be up to speed on understanding how history is a tool to guide him through his white house years. hence, he made the lincoln group. and it's so self-agrandizing, only lincoln maybe is better than me. but truth is if you look at presidential polls donald trump right now is ranking around warren harden and james buchanan. >> hold that thought for a second. because i talked about polls and abe lincoln in a tweet writing highest poll numbers in the history of the republican party and that includes abe linkin and ronald reagan. there must be something wrong. check that poll. lincoln died more than 70 years before modern polls were taken. that aside, it seems clear he is obsessed with that. and he wants that number one
ranking. >> he wants the number one ranking. and rinken is everybody's number one. the problem was when lincoln won. there was 7 states not in the union. and limited to the northern part of the country. we were fighting a civil war and people weren't taking quasi scientific polling of a president. he is just trying to have his name. trunk and lincoln aren't they dollar. the thing is all presidents try to claim lincoln. remember barack obama launched his presidential campaign from springfield. and george w. bush even now says his favorite president is lincoln. the recent director of the bush library in dallas is now the director of the lincoln library. everybody likes linking because whenever you get beat up no bad you think you have it it lincoln
had it worse. he ends up being number one. >> doug, always fascinating conversation when you are on thank you. >> thank you. >> one of the most powerful men in television staying silent amid sexual harassment allegations. the growing controversy surrounding cbs ceo les moonves next. plans.ess it comes with a ton of entertainment options. great, can you sign for this? yeah. hey, uh.. what's in that one? that's a shark. new and only with at&t, you can get unlimited data, 30+ channels of live tv, and your choice of things like hbo or amazon music. more for your thing. that's our thing. visit att dot com.
open today now has the first lady weighing in, seeming to take sides with lebron james. also there has been a sighting of hope hicks apparently traveling with the president today. it's not clear why she travels with the president after she resigned her post as communications director in february. but we are staying on top of all of this. again he is going to ohio to campaign in a very close race it appears going into tuesday's special election. in a district that has for a very, very long time gone republican, a deep red district. it has gone red in 88 of the past 98 years, if you can believe it. and the latest polls show this race twoon the republican and democrat neck and neck. he is going to campaign for the republican trey balderson. we stay on top of that as the evening continues. in the meantime cbs chairman and executive les moonves is staying silent about the sexual harassment allegation that is
threatened to end his career. this week the network's board agreed to hire two law firms to conduct a full scale investigation after a report by the new yorker ronnen farrows accusesed of executive of making unwanted sexual advances advances over the years. >> in many facets of the company careful not to overgeneralize but there are a string of examples machinistsed in litigation and complaints inside the company where people said this happened to me too. this wasn't just les moonves this was a culture of protecting powerful people. >> many of the charges are decades old and pre-date moonves's arrival at cbs but this week the l.a. times reported cbs board members that several months ago los angeles police investigated moonves for an alleged sexual assault. joining us the founder of two women advocacy sites, the list and change the ratio. i'm glad to have your voice on the show this afternoon. we have seen a number of other high profile people quickly lose
jobs of allegations of sexual harassment. charlie rose at cbs. why do you think cbs is handling this differently holding back before taking action? >> well, i think there are a few reasons. i think probably one of the top reasons is the way the stock performed following these revelations from the new yorker. it tanked. who likes when a stock tanks. and cbs is a very big company. but also les moonves is very paufl. we are talking about the consolidation of power over years. the head of a network, someone extremely powerful. and these -- and the instinct of these companies is button down the hatches. go to the mattresses any other metaphor you might want. no, no we did never did anything appropriate. our kurmt is great. but if you read the new yorker
piece there were harrowing ails of less moonves not only making unwanted sexual advances but enacting vengeance against women who rejected him. and there were economic and professional repercussions as a result that derailed many careers. so this is serious. and it wasn't just moonves. the larger question is the. >> right. >> the per missive atmosphere at cbs for men who misbehaved. and the tenure of jeff bigger from 60 minutes is called into question with the reports. and i will add that this is not the first time. this may be the first time the reports are officially coming out. but it's hardly not the first time -- it's hardly the first time that, you know, reporters have been investigating. >> right. and involving cbs specifically, i mentioned charlie rose there a moment ago.
but the president of cbs films, terrie press, a woman put out a statement regarding the moonves situation. here is what she says. i do not believe it's my place to question the accounts put forth by the women but i find myself asking that if we are examining the industry as it existed decades before through the lens of 2018 should we also discuss a path to learning, reconciliation and forgiveness? outrage is a valuable commodity but its usefulness can be diminished by overuse and understanding and learning from the past is the way towards a future that reflects real change. again, as far as we know the allegations involving moonves are all from decades ago before the current me too movement which she seems to be referencing here. should moonves be given a second chance? is it possible he learned from lessons that have you know emerged after the me too movement or during this most recent me too movement. >> i don't understand -- i don't
understand why these predators and these perpetrators of not just bad behavior but of, you know, of an overafternooning culture that was damaging to women -- these are just the ones willing to speak up on the record -- why are we giving him the benefit of the doubt? so far i haven't seen any evidence that he deserves the benefit of the doubt. so -- apologies for that. see if i can get rid of that. sorry. anyway, i think that in this case, anything from a cbs executive should probably be questioned because the -- i mean they have a vested interest in the result of this investigation not disrupting their corporate environment. but to say that outrage has its place but not always has its place, i mean that's very disingenuous. there is a lot to be outraged about in the reports of
moonves's behavior. and there were 30 sources at cbs who came forward and attested to this, according to the new yorker. and they are -- they are well-known for the fact checking department. >> indeed. rachel, thanks so much. >> thank you. coming up, call it the trial of style, the ostrich coat, a python blaze are, a little plaid mixed on. joanie mos reports on the clothes at the center of the paul manafort trial. fish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
♪ ♪ our new, hot, fresh breakfast will get you the readiest. (buzzer sound) holiday inn express. be the readiest. i knew at that exact moment ... i'm beating this. my main focus was to find a team of doctors. it's not just picking a surgeon, it's picking the care team and feeling secure in where you are. visit cancercenter.com/breast you're smart,eat you already knew that. but it's also great for finding the perfect used car. you'll see what a fair price is and you can connect with a truecar certified dealer. now you're even smarter. this is truecar. bundle and save big, but now it's time to find my dream abode.
-right away, i could tell his priorities were a little unorthodox. -keep going. stop. a little bit down. stop. back up again. is this adequate sunlight for a komodo dragon? -yeah. -sure, i want that discount on car insurance just for owning a home, but i'm not compromising. -you're taking a shower? -water pressure's crucial, scott! it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. -they don't say that.
it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. - (phone ringing)a phones offers - big button,ecialized phones... and volume-enhanced phones., get details on this state program. call or visit and accessoriesphones for your mobile phone. like this device to increase volume on your cell phone.
- ( phone ringing ) - get details on this state program call or visit ♪ (electronic dance music)♪ ♪ ♪
center, ohio. you see this room filling up. this is at a high school there where the president will host a rally tonight, what he calls a make america great again rally, in part trying to avert a special election loss as he campaigns for troy balderson, the state senator in a tough fight to represent ohio's 12th congressional district. this includes affluent suburbs of columbus and central ohio. this is a deep red district. it's gone republican for many, many, many decades. and yet the polling show this is race now neck and neck. we are staying on top of this. in the meantime we are staying on top of the latest in the paul manafort trial one includes ostrich and python and plaid. omy. jeanie moos reports on paul manafort's interesting fashion choices. >> the price of the ostrich jacket don't bite until you see it on the invoice. $15,000.
and you're probably imagining this. >> but i would imagine like feathers on it somewhere. >> we had one tweet manafort's $15,000 ostrich jacket probably looked like a but i'm going to imagine b anyway. even kimmel fell for the feathers. >> that should be what he has to wear in jail. just sitting in a cell dressed up like big bird waiting for the trial. >> but the jacket is actually leather not feather. you know it's ostrich from the bumper-to-bumpers that were followicles with where the faithers were. he also bought the ostrich vest for 9500 something mr. burns on the simpsons didn't vest. >> soo see my vest made from real gorilla chess. >> ostriches get no respect. and near does an ohs strich jacket. it's something you need to work for trump that allows to you stick your head in the sand. but the legislator is considered luxury. it ends up in $35,000 birken bags by ermez.
who know who else flaunts it as a status symbol. >> hot talk back it up. >> in the latest video about money. but ohs strich wasn't even manafort's most expensive exotic skin. that would be the $18500 python jacket. then the plaid, so similar to one worn by trump exlawyer michael cohen that someone tweeted did manafort loan cohen his jacket. still it's the ostrich jacket that has everyone craning nieskes. >> he had a coat made from an ohs strich which explains the state's first witness. >> we haven't even manafort in it. yet someone noted this looks better wearing it. in the eyes of the ohs strich, manafort is already guilty. jeanie moos. cnn. >> does that make him guilty? >> new york. finally, a bizarre story out of yellow stone national park
>> gotcha! sorry. [laughter] >> i wanted to ask you about public confusion, connected with attorney general barr's release of your report. i will be coding you are in march 27th letter. sarah, in that letter -- and at several other times -- did you convey to the attorney general that the "introductions and executive some summaries accurately >> i have to say the letter itself speaks for itself." >> and those were your words and that? continuing with your letter, you are to the attorney general that "the summary letter the department sent to congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of march 24th did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions." is that correct? >> again, i rely on the letter itself for its terms. >> thank you.
what was it about the reports -- context, nature, substance -- that the attorney's letter did not capture? >> i think we captured that in the in the march 27th responsive letter. >> this is from the letter. >> i'm directing you to the letter itself. >> you finish that letter by saying there is no public confusion about critical aspects as a result of our investigation. could you tell us specifically some of the public confusion you identified? >> again, i go back to the letter. it speaks for itself. >> could attorney general barr have avoided public confusion if he had released her a summary and executive introduction and summary? >> i don't feel comfortable speculating on that. >> shifting to may 30th, the attorney general in an interview with cbs news said that you could have reached -- "you could have reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity" on the part of the
present. did the attorney general or his staff ever tell you that he thought you should make a decision on whether the president engaged in criminal activity? >> i'm not going to speak to what the attorney general was thinking or saying. >> if the attorney general had directed you ordered you to make a decision on whether the president engaged in criminal activity, would you have so don done? >> i cannot answer that question in a vacuum. >> director mueller, again, i think you for being here. i agree with your march 27th letter. there was public confusion and the president took full advantage of that confusion by falsely claiming your report found no obstruction. let us be clear -- your report did not exonerate the president. instead, it provided substantial evidence of obstruction of justice leaving congress to do its duty. we shall not shrink from that duty. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. >> mr. chairman, i have a point of inquiry on your left.
>> the gentleman will state his point of inquiry. >> was the point of this hearing to get mr. mueller to recommend impeachment? >> that is not a fair point of inquiry. the gentle lady from florida is recognized. >> mr. chairman -- >> director mueller -- >> the gentle lady from florida is recognized. >> you are a patriot. i want to refer you now to volume two, page 158. you wrote that "the president's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or see to his requests." is that right? >> that is accurate, that is what we found. >> and you are basically referring to advisors who disobey the president's orders, like white house counsel don mcgahn, former trump campaign manager corey lewandowski. is that right? >> we have not specified the persons mentioned. >> in page 158, white house counsel don mcgahn "did not tell
the acting attorney general that the special counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the president's orders." he also explained that an attempt to obstruct justice does not have to succeed to be a crime, right? >> true. >> simply attempting to obstruct justice can be a crime, correct? >> yes. >> so even though the president's aides refused to carry out his orders to interfere with your investigation, that is not a defense to obstruction of justice by this president, is it? >> i'm not going to speculate. >> to reiterate, simply trying to obstruct justice can be a crime, correct? >> yes. >> you say about the president's efforts to influence the investigation were "mostly unsuccessful," and that's because not all of his efforts were unsuccessful. right? >> are you reading into what we have written in the report?
at >> i was going to ask you if you could just tell me which ones you had in mind as "successful" when he wrote that sentence. >> i'm going to pass on that. >> yeah. [laughs] director mueller, today we have talked a lot about the separate acts by this president, but you also wrote in your report that "the overall pattern of the president's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the president's acts, and the inferences can be drawn about his intent." correct? >> an accurate recitation from the report. >> right. on page 158, again, i think it's important for everyone to note that the president's conduct had a significant change when he realized that it was -- that the investigations were conducted to investigate his obstruction acts. in other words, when the american people are deciding
whether the president committed obstruction of justice, they need to look at all the president's conduct and overall pattern of behaviors. is that correct? >> i don't disagree. >> figure. dr. mueller. director mueller. doctor, also. i will designate that, too. i have certainly made up my mind about what we have reviewed today, that it meets the elements of obstruction. including whether there was corrupt intent. what is clear is that anyone else, including some members of congress, would have been charged with crimes for these acts. we would not have allowed this behavior from any of the previous 44 presidents. we should not allow it now or for the future, to protect our democracy. and, yes, we will continue to investigate. because as you clearly state at the end of your report, no one is above the law. i yield back my time. speak of the gentle lady yields back.
the gentle lady from texas. >> director mueller, you wrote in your report that you "determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment." was not in part because of an opinion by the deferment of justice office of legal counsel that a sitting president can't be charged with a crime? >> yes. >> director mueller, at your ma, he explained that "the opening the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing." that process, other than the criminal justice system, for accusing a president of wrongdoing -- is that impeachment? >> i'm not going to comment on that. >> in your report, you also wrote that you did not want to "potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct."
for the nonlawyers in the room, what did you mean by "potentially preempt constitutional processes?" >> i'm not going to try to explain that. >> that actually is coming from page 1 of volume to 2. in the footnote, what are those constitutional processes? >> i think i heard you mention at least one. >> impeachment, correct? >> i'm not going to comment. >> okay. that is one of the constitutional processes listed in the report in the footnote in volume 2. your report documents the many ways the president sought to interfere with your investigation. and you state in your report on page ten, volume 2, interfering with a congressional inquiry or investigation with corrupt intent can also constitute obstruction of justice."
>> true. >> well, the president has told us that he intends to fight all the subpoenas. his continued efforts to interfere with investigations of his potential misconduct certainly reinforce the importance of the process the constitution requires to "formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing," as you cited in the report. this hearing has been very helpful to this committee, as it exercises its constitutional duty to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president. i agree with you, director mueller, that we all have a vital role in holding this president accountable for his actions. more than that, i believe we in congress have a duty to demand accountability and safeguard one of our nation's highest principles, that no one is above the law. from everything that i have heard you say here today, it is clear that everyone else would
have been prosecuted based on the evidence available in your report. it now falls on us to hold president trump accountable. thank you for being here. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. chairman, the gentle lady yields back. >> i just want to think the chairman. after this was first built, we both get in time. our side got our 5 minutes in. also, mr. miller, thank you for being here. i joined the chairman and thanking you for being here. >> thank you. director mueller, we think you for attending today's hearing. before we conclude, i ask everyone to please remain seated and quiet while the witness exits the room. [applause] >> bret: after three hours and 34 minutes, the testimony of former special counsel robert mueller, most recently in this time pointing back to this
448-page report, often asking house members to repeat questions and specific citations. kind of a halting, staccato presentation that was at times pretty tough to follow. before this hearing, as we talked about from democrats, they wanted americans to "see the movie." to animate the mueller report. today, after this hearing, they maybe saying the book is much better than the movie. robert mueller was clearly a reluctant witness. we now perhaps see why. he did say the report did not exonerate president trump, which was the most retweeted moment of this entire hearing. but there were several times he contradicted what was in the report. one of the biggest was in this section of the hearing when he was asked by democratic congressman ted lieu if he wasn't for the office of legal guidance, would he have recommended an adjustment for obstruction of justice. he said yes. he said they took the guidance to consider that they could
never die the present, and that mueller told him the olc was not the only reason he chose not to recommend an indictment. just guidance. he was called out on that by congressman debbie lesko of arizona. this hearing focused on obstruction of justice. we are told the intel committee this afternoon will focus more on the russian interference in volume one. but it was painful at times. >> martha: it was painful at times. i think that olc discrepancy is perhaps one of -- legally, one of the most interesting moments we watched unfold today. we also have to politically remember that the folks outside the room are really the ones who are most important in terms of what happens from here. was there a winner today? did democrats win this? the republicans win this? primary chairman nadler pushed very hard for this hearing. so he will be questioning himself, perhaps. was it worth it? did it enhance or detract from the argument that mueller had laid breadcrumbs for them? and it is now congress' duty to follow those breadcrumbs where
they lead. i.e., potentially impeachment proceedings, or at least investigation. are the american people going to be inclined to want to see more of this investigation after today? or will they agree with the cbs poll be put up earlier that said 53% of americans say it's time to drop this? that it's time to move on? what does nancy pelosi say when she watches this and gathers with her members after all of this? is she going to say it's time to move on, or did they get what they want to connect what about the g.o.p.? what are the things that kept prodding at, whether he had looked into the origins of this in the station. when it came to christopher steele on the dossier, when it came to all of that, he kept saying -- >> bret: fusion gps. >> martha: exactly, glenn simpson. "out of my purview, that wasn't part of my investigation." parts of that seem too obvious would be part of the report. but when they tried to nail down things, they seem to fall outside of his purview. a lot of questions remain here. catherine herridge has been watching all this along with a spear let's bring in catherine
from outside the hearing room this afternoon. catherine? >> thank you, martha, good afternoon paid the former special counsel robert mueller testified that he felt handcuffed by justice department legal opinion that prohibits the indictment of a sitting president, and the key section of the exchange with the democratic chairman jerry nadler came when he asked if the president could be indicted once he left office. and robert mueller responded, "yes." but that's in conflict with testimony from the attorney general william barr earlier this year, who said that, in march, mueller told him and others on a conference call that there were evidence issues. that it was not the justice department's legal opinion that was blocking his actions. what we heard consistently from democrats, they said to mueller, "anyone else would have been indicted on obstruction, except this is the president of the united states."
but mueller also testified that in no way was his investigation over the last two years ever blocked or impeded. consistently what we heard from republicans is that there were double standards. congressman john ratcliffe pressed mueller on what justice department policy allowed him to make his decision and his statements on the issue of obstruction. that he did not exonerate the president but they did not bring criminal charges. and robert mueller could not point to that policy, because as ratcliff said, it does not exist. but we heard from congressman jim jordan but there was a double standard. he pressed the special counsel on this intelligence asset, someone who started the ball running on the whole russia investigation. special counsel mueller said that he could not answer that question. jordan responded, "multiple trump campaign associates were prosecuted for lying to the special counsel, yet you say in
your report that he lied to the fbi, yet he was not prosecuted. ." there's an exchange that my going to the radar but it caught my attention because it appeared to be an effort to possibly lay a trap for the special counsel. what i'm getting at is misleading statements to members of congress. this was the exchange with republican congressman stupid. he asked special counsel mueller about this meeting on may 16th. right before he was appointed. whether he had interviewed to the fbi director with the president. he said, no, he was in that meeting to provide input, who should be the fbi director. then a credible question, he said, "you tell the vice president of this was the one job you would come back for?" in the special counsel said, "i do not recall." that might be an important exchange going forward, martha and bret. >> catherine, thank you.
democrat david axelrod, senior advisor to president obama, treated out at the end of this hearing, "this is very, very painful." let's bring in former independent counsel kenneth starr. he's also a fox news contributo contributor. ken, you are mentioned a couple times in this hearing. your thoughts on this day's testimony? >> one of the critical things, guys, is the very idea of book n exoneration is very unfortunate. bob mueller should not have written book 2. that came out very early on in the hearing. congressman ratcliff from texas was extremely clear in saying, "this is not your job." it's not just the focus on exoneration are not exoneration. it's the very idea they were going to lay out all this evidence with an opportunity to respond on the part of the president.
that it's fundamentally not only unfair, and the fact that it's fundamentally unfair is why this report was read dramatically tot over again, it simply not appropriate. so i'm going to be very blunt -- bob mueller did not give a good reason for why he wrote, and his staff wrote, the second volume. which is what this hearing was all about. the second volume, the second part of his report, was on "obstructive acts." and there is inconsistency with exactly what was the conclusion. and, why did he not do what the prosecutor was charged with doing? what he was charged with doing was to it, in fact, make a determination of whether there was a chargeable offense. of course, he failed to do that. i think that should be frustrating to everyone. it was certainly frustrating to attorney general barr. "that's what you were hired to do."
let the record also show that in terms of the whole obstruction of justice, and everyone else would have been charged, that is just wrong. there are prosecutors who would say, "hey, given this evidence --" which is untested, through just allegations -- "given this body of evidence, anyone else would be charged." that is just wrong. i would summon to the standard rod rosenstein. not just bill barr, but rod rosenstein made the judgment in consultation with career people in that apartment of justice, accepting book 2 or volume 2 as true, that we would not charge this. this is not -- it does not rise to the obstruction of justice. i think something was really messing from today, that is, it came out once. i've studied the entire report. what cries out is how frustrated the president of the united states was. how upset he was. that was emphasized, right? but why was he upset?
the missing thing was, "i've done nothing wrong! i don't know the russians. there was no collusion, there was no conspiracy," and the like. book 1, the first part of the report, in fact makes that very point. because we now know from book 1, the first book, on collusion, that bob mueller concluded based on obviously some very sensitive sources that vladimir putin was telling his oligarchs, "we don't know donald trump." i'm obviously paraphrasing. "we don't know donald trump." "do you guys know i'm? we don't know anyone at his campaign." the whole idea, if we go back to the providence of this, the origins of it, carter page never charged with a crime. and he should not have been charged with a crime. the entire process has been so unfortunate, to be honest -- and i love bob mueller as a human
being, as a patriot -- but i think he has done a grave disservice to our country. in the way he conducted this investigation. by the way, he said time and again, "i don't question politics of my staff." i understand that. but you aren't blind to what your staff members are all about as human beings. you don't ask them about it, but you don't have to ask to know that you are andrew weissmann types are very, very partisan in their outlook on life. partisan people can put aside their partisanship, but it's a test. can they? and what steps did bob mueller take to assure the american people that he had, shall i say, a fair and balanced staff? that was one thing i thought was very revealing and missing. >> bret: a judge, a couple of quick things, quickly. one, he was asked whether this -- and its different guidelines, you were an independent counsel, he special counsel three different rules. this was supposed to be a
confidential report to the attorney general. and he made the decision, with the doj, of what happened next. he was asked, kneeling was today, whether he thought this report would be public. he said no. he did not come in the report, recommended impeachment. democrats, however, see this as a road map to impeachment. he did not talk about that today. just your thoughts quickly on all of that? >> my thought is i have to disagree with bob mueller. when i read volume 2, it was designed for congress. he turned himself into an independent counsel, with the reporting obligation to the congress of the united states. >> martha: ken, as i turn to the panel here can be found 13 charges of impeachment against bill clinton? is that correct? >> 11. >> martha: 11. it's interesting -- let me go to the panel now, andy mccarthy -- it's interesting, he said he didn't want to talk about impeachment.
"impeachment was not a part of my purview." it's interesting to note, would he go back to the ken starr investigation, there were 11 articles of impeachment found. >> not only that, but in his statement on may 29th, which i think he teed up -- he was trained to help the committee, he teed up impeachment for them they are better than he does in his report. he is very clear, saying that in our system it's not for federal prosecutors to be the ones to regulate misconduct by the president. that the constitution as another vehicle for that, and another level of responsibility. it was clear that he was talking about impeachment. >> bret: also, trey gowdy, chris wallace from fox news sunday. mr. chairman, your thoughts on the day? >> he said he didn't want to come, now we know why he didn't want to come.
i don't think the report should have been made public. i don't think you should have testified. prosecutors don't engage in these collateral consequences like impeachment. you either indict or you shut up. the three main takeaways for me, johnny ratcliffe discussing the flipping of the bird. even the president is presumed innocent. he's not above the law, which was the democrat mantra, but is not beneath the law. under the former federal prosecutor said, "if you can reach a conclusion on conspiraco indictment, why couldn't you do it on obstruction?" so, the big take away to me was the democrats wanted this to fuel their impeachment narrative, and i'll bet you if they could cancel this afternoons hearing, they would. >> bret: chris? >> this morning i had kind of a tough comment about the opening session. i think i may have used the word
"disaster." in any case, i had an email exchange after that with a member of the democratic committee staff. very professional conversation, email exchange. he said, "look, we did not expect --" i love this expression. "we did not expect robert mueller to be the most expressive witness." that's an understatement. "but we thought in this exchange we could bring the report, the 448-page report, to life." ultimately i think this is less about legal issues and political issues. ultimately, impeachment is a political decision by the house. i really wonder, after those three plus hours, whether or not they did bring it to life. there were certainly some moments. you had jerry nadler asking, "did you exonerate the president?" "no." "did you find no obstruction?" "no." the exchange of ted lieu, which may or may not have contradictory of your think he said, where he basically said, "the reason i didn't indict was because of the office of legal counsel ruling." the real question is, is this
going to be a game changer? is this going to change -- 95 democrats have voted for impeachment, are a lot more now going to vote? more importantly, nancy pelosi says, is there could be some bipartisan buy-in on this? i don't see this changing many minds. i don't see anymore move to impeachment, and to the degree that nancy pelosi doesn't want to go down that route, she may end up unintentionally being the big winner today. because i don't think the drive for impeachment gain any momentum. in fact, it may have lost some. >> martha: trey gowdy, as you watch this back and forth, very difficult moments there. for the questioners who worked on this questions, then you have robert mueller in many cases just starting at point a, "can you rephrase the question?" is there anything you would do the situation as you look toward this afternoon, to make this a little more fruitful? >> more leading questions, more questions were he just says yes or no. and he is going to have to get better on the purview question. to argue that the term toward
meeting is in his peer purviewt meetings hours before and after are not is a weakness that he has just never been able to overcome. that, and the bias. if you fired peter strzok because of an appearance of bias, but you kept people who showed up for what they thought would be a victory party, and he kept people who donated to secretary clinton, you got to reconcile how much bias is too much and how much of it is okay. this afternoon, is if adam schf can't cancel it -- which is what he liked to do -- more leading questions, les mueller. and schiff is good as that. he's good at making the focus the question and not the answer. >> martha: you said many times that adam schiff said there is evidence of collusion. do you expect adam schiff to press him on that? >> no, ma'am. the three eyed raven, adam schiff, saw collusion that no one has seen. now the house intel, and not mueller.
he hopes we will not remember what he said in march of 2017. they are going all obstruction. there is no conspiracy, no collusion. since all obstruction. >> bret: you don't think we will get it to russia specifically, what they did or didn't do in that intel here in? >> i think that was the ruse to get mueller to come back. the election security is really important, what russia did. but based on answers i heard this morning, he's not going to be very much. politically, he needs to be obstruction. they lose on collusion. >> bret: lastly, andy, democratic lawmaker at the end of this hearing was trying to shore up the resume a special cancer mueller, asking him what president appointed in u.s. attorney. >> yeah. and he couldn't remember. look, the big issue -- or one of the big issues coming in here --dash was attorney general barr had said that mueller told him on march 5th, when they first sat down to have their first meeting about this, that the office of legal counsel guidance says you can't indict a sitting president. it had nothing to do with his
termination of the case. two weeks later, he files the report, and of course he is relying on it in a big way. what a lot of people said was, "how could these two things be true?" i think if you watch mueller for three hours today, those two things could absolutely be true. >> bret: in other words, the staff drove the train? >> two weeks earlier, maybe he didn't know what the role of the olc gardens was paid by the time they filed the report , they braced him on the change. >> bret: panel, thank you very much. we have an afternoon of coverage with the house intelligence committee. we will hand it over now to "outnumbered" in just a bit. they've been watching along with us. we will be back for the house intel committee hearing. harris come over to you. >> harris: martha, bret, thank you very much. we are awaiting formal special counsel robert mueller's testimony before the house intel committee, as bret just said. he just completed his testimony before the house judiciary. that ran approximately three and half hours. there were a slew of dramatic
moments. "outnumbered" now. i'm harris faulkner. melissa francis, coanchor of "america's newsroom." sandra smith is back! fox news contributor, emily compagno. in the center seat, you want tom dupree. former deputy associate attorney general under president george w. bush. let's quickly go around and get everybody's first thoughts. tom? >> tom: huge disappointed if the democrats. they clearly wanted to bring the impeachment passions to a boil and they didn't even achieve a low simmer. i think mueller was the presently held in , disconnected from his own investigation, and they were clearly leading up to try and say he felt he obstructed justice. not only did mueller refuse to agree with that come here from here for merely contradicted them. >> melissa: i thought we instantly knew why that day he took to the podium and didn't take any questions, and we were all surprised about that, i think we knew wide today we saw this. he had a tough time answering the questions he seemed to not know at a time.
with now it was a different situation, it looks worse. but the rest of it was struggling and it made it seem like he didn't know his own report. the beach and butter together. there was a time he was asked a question, and i knew the answer from the report and he did not. >> harris: like, "what is fusion gps?" he didn't know. much of the country involved in watching all of this would know. it's very odd. sandra? >> sandra: fascinating reaction about robert mueller himself and the way he appears, the way he has asked for questions to be repeated on multiple occasions. and it's coming from both sides of the aisle. david axelrod, former advisor to former president barack obama, he is saying "this is a man who i deeply respect." he hasn't text defied publicly in over six years, but he says he does not appear to be as sharp as as he was there. brit hume singh mueller is still struggling to answer questions, even after they were repeated.
i don't know that democrats or republicans going into this side robert mueller or even thought that would be an element of this hearing, that robert mueller was struggling to really take on some of these questions and answer them. >> harris: you know, emily, how is mueller's credibility holding up at this point? you are making some comments as we were watching. >> emily: i think that's what the republicans had gone after. frankly, it's been eroded. the overarching theme i saw today, was this erosion of what we perceived as the commander of a two-year investigation, to kind of be reduced to this feeble man that frankly had zero command of the report or the content, with a self admission that it was a segmented investigation? so republicans are counting on it. they are pouncing on the credibility both of him as well as the investigation, because it's now and admitted staff-that investigation. democrats are focusing on the attempts, alleged attempts, at obstruction and the "but for." the olc report.
he testified but for the olc report. we have that now. however, barr, was the "but for." we want i want to get a louie gohmert. get it go back and forth it was interesting. the point where -- was occlusion, was it conspiracy? that whole convoluted conversation that went on between mueller and another lawmaker. >> tom: that was addressing. i think the point of that exchange was to basically try and rebut the president's tweets saying they found no collusion. the point that i think they are trying to bring out at the hearing is that collusion is defined in the federal criminal code is not the the dash i thot it was fairly effective. when people speak colloquially in plain english they will often say "collusion, experience a don't act on my confederacy " it basically means the same thing. i think it was basic at the point. >> harris: it seems like he was saying it for us that they were kind of, as you say, colloquialism. kind of equal. then legally not equal. it was really confusing. >> tom: that was one of the points. it seemed like merely made a
statement at the hearing, then when i directed him to what he wrote in the report, it contradicted. >> harris: it didn't match! >> tom: it didn't match and he didn't seem to acknowledge there was a mismatch i kind of leaned back and said, "i will just rest on the report." >> harris: as journalists we just look for inconsistencies. so we might not have your legal mind but we know when something doesn't match. >> tom: we should know what's in the report. at the end of the day. [laughs] >> harris: you and i were here when it broke. it now has artwork, mind. >> tom: my and is dog-eared, too. >> harris: louie gohmert at one point was asking mueller about having those anti-trump lovers. the fbi agent and has paramore, on his team here is that. watch. >> peter strzok hated trump. you didn't know that before he was made part of your team. >> i did not know that. >> all right. >> actually, when i did find out, i acted swiftly to have him
reassigned elsewhere. >> well, there is some discussion about how swift that was prewhen did you learn about the ongoing affair he was having with lisa page? speak out about the same time. >> he's not currently acting in order to see that justice is done. what he's doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice, and the fact that you ran it out for two years means that you perpetuated injustice. >> >> harris: talk to me, tom. what was happening there? >> tom: i was interested in several things. one, that mueller engaged on the question of whether he knew there was someone on his team who harbored this deep bias. number two, mueller, for all the talk in the report -- and i think he sincerely believes about preserving the in periods of impropriety -- he seemed a little oblivious to the fact hed this guy, and lisa page, on his team who could harbored by us. that's what surprising to me. he says he recognizes the importance of appearing of
impropriety, but he wasn't taking the steps at the same time, probably, to be free of that. >> harris: this comes back to something that melissa was saying. that has to do with not just his preparedness for today, but has actual involvement in the case. look, we need to take a quick monument break. we may come back, counsel to the president jay sekulow has given a statement. i will share it. stay close. >> president trip is tearing our country apart. his immigration policies are separating parents from their children. his crimes and corruption are threatening the rule of law. his racist rhetoric is picking americans against each other. the constitution is very clear -- congress has oversight over the president. so, what's the response? that they are going on vacation for six weeks. seriously? we are in a crisis. that's why i'm asking speaker pelosi to cancel summer
vacation and conduct daily public oversight hearings to hold trump accountable for his crimes, corruption, and racism. business as usual is not working for the american people. we need action, now. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message, because we have to stand up to donald trump before he destroys our democracy. join me. together, we can change this. >> we are back with live coverage as we continue watching robert mueller, he's had a bit of a break right now before he faces the intelligence committee, which is chaired by adam schiff. an opportunity that they have all said they wanted for some time. after some of the reviews have come in this morning, of mr. miller's performance, they maybe questioning whether or not this is helping their case. at this point. >> bret: continued coverage on fox news, our thanks to the "outnumbered" crew. harris teased there is a new statement from the president's attorneys. jay sekulow, counsel to the president, says this.
"this morning's testimony exposed the troubling deficiencies of the special counsel investigation. this testimony revealed that the probe was conducted by a small group of politically biased prosecutors who, as hard as they tried, were unable to establish either obstruction, conspiracy, or collusion between the trump campaign and russia. it's also clear that the special counsel conducted his two-year investigation unimpeded. the american people understand that this issue is over. they also understand the case is closed." again, from the council to the president. we are back with ken starr, also our panel, and we have chris wallace, andy mccarthy, and former house oversight committee chairman and fox news contributor, trey gowdy. judge starr, let's start with you as we head to the house intelligence committee. the guess is that this will focus more on the russia interference part of this. what are your thoughts on the looking at where we've seen and what's ahead? >> i think when we go back and analyze all that bob mueller, in
a very thorough investigation, we have to admit. very thorough, very conference of, and essentially unimpeded. some quibbling about that. but there was, in fact, no collusion. it just did not happen. again, when we go to the report itself and we see all these contraindications, that there was any collusion, when we go to the two indictments of the russian individuals and the russian organizations, when you read all that and think about the corporation, general flynn, who is now in a different situation, out of all that not a single suggestion of "collusion." and the report seemed to me, in book one, not only that you have to tease this out but the conclusion as you read it, "no collusion, no conspiracy." and lots of contraindications. that is to say, not only was there not sufficient evidence of collusion, there was lots of
contrary evidence suggesting exactly the opposite. including those two indictments. the diamonds of the russian individuals, the russian organization, they cry out collusion. these are the russian operatives taking their active measures to sow seeds of mischief and controversy within the american political system. they're not doing it collaboratively with the trump campaign or anyone associated with the trump organization. >> bret: trey gowdy, one of the things special counsel mueller was tripped up on, the collusion, conspiracy, and he said -- in the report, it's essentially the same. asked about that early period to the judge's point here, there are no indictments on construes with the russians. there were no indictments on church injustice. the olc guides about the present, they could have indicted somebody for obstruction of justice. if there were indictments to be pushed forward. right? >> i think he did give the democrats a little bit of an
opening this morning. republicans like to say "no evidence." they like to set standards of the law does not recognize. mueller correct them and said, "insufficient evidence." i bet you the democrats are going to spend their time on that quantum between "no" and "insufficient." that could be up to 94%. the fact is you can't prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, there does not mean there is no evidence. i bet you chef and swalwell and the others talk about the evidence of collusion and can experience even though it didn't result in an indictment. >> martha: chris, politically, as the democrats look to this -- and we will talk to tom perez, chair of the dnc, tonight on this story. how do they play this at this point? how do they gauge whether or not they should kind of close this book after today, or whether or not -- as trey points out -- there's enough there to continue to sow the seeds? would be fruitful for them electorally? >> they aren't going to close the book.
nancy pelosi issued a statement. i think it was yesterday. even before this hearing, that indicated they will continue to investigate about these allegations. about allegations of other misdeeds by president trump. you know, you can do a lot of things short of impeachment that can mobilize your base and maybe shift some persuadable voters over to your side, by pointing out things that you say the president did wrong. this will be part of the election campaign. i certainly don't think that you got any fuel today for impeachment. to the degree that you had robert mueller saying things, he was simply ratifying what was already in the report. there was no new evidence from him. i just want to follow-up on congressman gaudi. this was -- on page 2, point 1, i'm going to get some news out of this thing for this is w. "the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian
government and its election interference activities." not insufficient evidence, they are saying, "we did not establish there was this conspiracy." so that'll be a pretty tall hill for the democrats to climb today. there was much more evidence. i'm not going to say it's conclusive, or sufficient, but it was much more evidence on the obstruction front. there really is no evidence of a coordinated effort between the trump campaign and the russians to interfere in the election. there are contacts but no sign of what they would consider -- >> martha: that's the entire crux of this whole two-year investigation. this idea -- and they brought up roger stone, they brought up wikileaks, but to the present know about it? new coronation and no cooperation on the part of this campaign. anyone, or any american, they said. because the americans that were indicted in this were indicted on separate issues. not related to collusion. >> bret: and not including some of the people they talked
about, like massoud, who lied to the investigators. the beginning of this investigation, andy mccarthy, is what a lot of republicans and a lot of viewers want to know, having looked at some of the question marks. this is not something robert mueller has been getting into. the ig and the other investigation. >> yeah, this goes to there being so little evidence of collusion, i think the issue they started to try and hone in on the first hearing -- and we will hear more about it today, in the second hearing -- when did they know that they did not have a collusion case? it seemed to me that was one of the two areas. the oil see guidance being the other one. that mueller seemed to have been prepped on. >> bret: and he had his assistant. >> that he interfered or tried to jump in on this question about timing. this is important. not just what ken star had to
say about it. they seem to preclude the possibility of collusion. i would also point out that in september of 2017, they would have been due to go back to the fisa court to get a reauthorization of the warrant on carter page. that would have required them to reaffirm what they have been referencing up to the point, that the fbi believed there was a collusive arrangement between the trump campaign and the russian government. they did not go back to the fisa court of temper. >> bret: trey gowdy, you are one of the people have seen the unredacted fisa documents. you followed this from the very beginning. how much there there will there be? >> we have to separate the dossier from the russian appropriate in terms of the origins, the early summer of 2016, i said before on your show. there was something for the
bureau to look into. with or not they planted that something and then looked into it, i hope horowitz will tell us. the dossier never verified, vetted, hard time believing they use that in the court proceeding. looking into whether or not russia was interfering in our 2016 election, there was a predicate for that. and he was a much better prosecutor than i ever was, for what makes me nervous about "when did you know there was no collusion can buy" is it that mueller is prepped? he will say, "you only know when you interview the last witness, and we wanted to talk to president trump and y'all wouldn't let us." if i were a democrat i would spend a lot of time saying that the guy who had a lot of answers, you wouldn't let us talk to. i didn't hear much about this morning. >> martha: in fact, you did. when you have the opportunity with hillary clinton bringing it up again and again in the way that she was interviewed, that it was sort of under very different circumstances. as we know, president trump never provide that opportunity for them at all.
that is something they could be probably sounding a lot more. >> bret: ken starr, we are seeing bob mueller under the spotlight. he, as we said, has appeared before congress some 90 times in his career. senator john kennedy just a little bit ago said, "i just find the whole thing sad. i see it as one big anticlimax. bob mueller has served his country well and honorably and i hope this isn't the american people's last memory of him." >> that's a very fair comment. i served alongside bob mueller. during president bush 41. i will tell you this, he was semper fi. a person of integrity, ability. but an enormous amount of energy. obviously he was going to be cautious today and what he said. this was not bob's finest hour, so i agree with that sentiment that we should be grateful for all that he has done for the country. but it would seem today that he was not in command and control of what his office produced.
that is both a tragedy but also a disaster for the country. >> bret: chris, as you are a democrat sitting on this panel and you just watch the last three and a half hours, what are you thinking? >> i'm going to go with trey gowdy. that sounds like pretty good stuff. first of all, you can't expect or rely on bob mueller to save your bacon. you are going to have to do -- we were talking before, to ask your leading questions and try to get a "yes" or "no" out of him. he seemed better in the second half. >> bret: especially when the people were under attack. he seemed to perk up. >> i would think the democrats would be very careful, to the degree that they can, to see things that are on the record in the report and then get him to affirm that they are in the report rather than relying on him to lead the way. i don't see much of that going on today. >> martha: it's interesting, when you look at the collusion side of the equation, you were
saying, trey gowdy, that obstruction is the more fertile ground with this investigation. however, with regard to collusion, the oversight of the equation is pretty rich. when you start to look at how all this got laid out, the collusion, the meetings that happened with professor mifsud. why wasn't he investigated? why didn't they look intimate? is he western intelligence or russian intelligence? why wasn't a globs-off relationship with mifsud? you think about a downer, putting out these little feelings for papadopoulos, for carter page along the way. i would imagine that the folks on your side of the aisle are going to have quite a few questions about that. and perhaps the nonanswers from mueller will speak volumes there. >> he's going to say that's not in his preview. kenny buck, former federal prosecutor, they had an extra question for the democratic mantra was "the president is not above the law, no one is above the law."
except apparently professor mifsud. in the report, you said he lied to the fbi and yet he's not charged. flynn was, papadopoulos was, gates was. why not him? so that's at least one person who is above the law. kenny had a great line of questions. think back to the comey-rogers hearing where this became public. where comey confirmed the existence of a russia investigation. remember, devon had a public hearing. they said they couldn't answer. think back to how chef and swalwell and himes handled that. they read the salacious headlines, and knowing the witness could not answer, all of the focus was on the question. all the focus was on the member of congress, and then you have this witness saying, "i cannot answer." i think that's what we are going to see his afternoon. hopefully the staff told him. he's going to be the focus, and the members, the question will be what we are talking about in three hours are not the answer. >> bret: andy, what we do
know, and one of perhaps the most powerful things bob mueller said, was the reiteration of the beginning of the report. and that is the systemic attacks by russia. which likely will be a focus in this. >> that's true. although he ran into a little bit of trouble because the federal judge gave the justice department a very hard time recently in one of the cases he brought, because they didn't establish that there was strong evidence that the russian regime as opposed to russians were buying the propaganda effort. >> bret: as bob mueller enters the room. again, this is the house intelligence committee. likely to be a different focus in the questioning. you saw the first round deal primarily with obstruction. likely, to get more to the russia side of this equation and how much russia did or didn't do, with the trump campaign did or didn't do. the photographers taking position here and we will see an opening from the chairman adam schiff. >> martha: it's worth pointing
out that aaron zebley is sworn in on this half of the testimony this afternoon. this intelligence inquiry. and also that adam schiff is the chair. it's set to go about two hours based on the number of questioners in this case. and we will see where this goes as we see robert mueller surrounded once again by photographers. perhaps this will be one of his last days in the spotlight. he didn't want to do this at all in the first place, but he is doing his duty and has appeared today. he starts the second segment of all of this with chairman adam schiff. >> at the outside, and be off of my colleagues, i want to thank you for a lifetime of service to of the country. your report, for the don't like those who have the time to study, his methodical methodical and i'm sitting. he tells a foreign adversary's sweeping and systematic
intervention in a close u.s. presidential election. it's enough to deserve the attention of every american as you well point out. your report tells another story, as well. the story of the 2016 election is also a story of disloyalty to country, greed, and about lies. your investigation determined that the trump campaign, including donald trump himself, knew that a foreign power was intervening in our election and welcomed it, built russian meddling into their strategy, and used it. disloyalty to country -- those are strong words, but how else are we to describe a presidential campaign which did not inform the authorities of a foreign offer of dirt on their opponent? which did not obligation on it or turn it away? but which instead invited it, encouraged it, and made full use of it?
that disloyalty may not have been criminal, constrained by uncooperative witnesses, the destruction of documents and the use of cryptic communications, your team was not able to establish each of the elements of the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. so, not a provable crime in any event. so i think maybe something worse, it crime is a violation of law, written by congress. but disloyalty to country violates the very oath of citizenship. our devotion to a core principle in which our nation was founded, that we the people and not some foreign power that wishes us ill, we decide who governs us. this is also a story about money. about greed and corruption, about the leadership of the campaign willing to compromise the nation's interests. not only to win, but to make money of the same time.
about a campaign chairman, who tried to use his position to cleanest ethnic millions. about a national security visor using his position to make money from still other foreign interests. and about a candidate trying to make more money than all of them put together. the real estate project, that tim was worth a fortune. hundreds of millions of dollars, and the realization of a lifelong ambition. a trump tower in the heart of moscow. a candidate who, in fact, viewed his whole campaign as the greatest infomercial in history. donald trump and his senior staff were not alone in their desire to use the election to make money. for russia, too, there was a powerful financial motive. putin wanted relief from sanctions imposed in the wake of russia's invasion of ukraine, and over human rights violations. the secret trump tower meeting between the russians and senior
campaign officials was about sanctions. the secret conversations between flynn and the russian ambassador about sanctions. trump and his team wanted more money for themselves, and the russians wanted more money for themselves and for their oligarchs. but the story doesn't end here, either. your report also tells a story about lies. lots of lies. lies about a gleaming tower in moscow, and lies about talks with the kremlin. lies about the firing of fbi director james comey and lies about efforts to fire you, dr. mueller. and lies to cover it up. lies about secret negotiations with the russians over sanctions and lies about wikileaks. lies about polling data and lies about hush money payments. lies about meetings to suck up secret back channels and lies about a secret meeting in new york trump tower. lies to the fbi. lies to your staff, and lies to this committee. lies to obstruct an
investigation into the most serious attack on our democracy by a foreign power in our history. that is where your report ends, director mueller. with a scheme to cover up obstruction, to seem every bit as systematic and persuasive as the russian disinformation campaign itself. but far more pernicious, since this rot came from within. even now, after 448 pages and two volumes, the deception continues. the president and his acolytes say you are found no collusion, though your report explicitly declined to address that question since collusion can involve both criminal and noncriminal conduct. your report laid out multiple offers of russian help to the trump campaign. the trump campaign acceptance of that help, and over acts for the rents to russian help. to most americans, that is the very definition of collusion. whether it's a crime or not.
they say report found no evidence of obstruction, although you outlined numerous action by by the presidents to obstruct the investigation. they say the president has been fully exonerated though you specifically declare you could not exonerate him. in fact, they say your whole investigation was nothing more than a witch hunt. that the russians did not interfere in our election, that it's all a terrible hoax. the real crime, they say, is not that the russians intervened to help donald trump. but that the fbi had the temerity to investigate it when they did. worst of all, worse than all the lies and the greed, is the disloyalty to country. for that, too, continues. when asked if the russians intervened again, will you take their help, mr. president ? "why not commit" was the essence
of his answer. "everyone does it." no, mr. president, they don't. not the america envisioned by jefferson, madison, and hamilton. not for those who believe in the idea that lincoln labored till his dying day to preserve the idea animating our great national experiment, so unique then, so precious still, that our government is chosen by our people, through our franchise, and not by some hostile foreign power. this is what is at stake. our next election, and the one after that, for generations to come. our democracy. this is why your work matters, director mueller. this is why our investigation matters. to bring these dangers to light. ranking member nunes?
and that brings this hour to lewandowski has agreed to come in. we expect to have him come in a close. this month. i will see you tonight at we have additional witnesses we 8:00 p.m. eastern and then will be interviewing some using tomorrow at 1:00 eastern and staff to interview and others we'll have them come during a public hearing. again at 3:00 p.m. eastern. this is all to educate the "deadline: white house" with american people. nicolle wallace begins now. there already is a mountain of >> hi, everyone. evidence that donald trump it's 4:00 in new york. committed multiple felonies. not even a trip to the pentagon >> congressman, do you to honor the victims of 9/11 on understand the critique that the this solemn anniversary slowed southern district of new york found donald trump to have the president's steady stream of committed a felony campaign complaints and attacks today. most of those grievances aired finance violation in their investigation that robert mueller found donald trump on his twitter feed became likely to have committed ten positively undone about a fresh criminal acts of obstruction of hound of head to head polls that justice and that it's this time show him losing to nearly half a to educate the public may have dozen democrats. been squandered? but he also found time in an >> the so we know if you look at what happened during watergate, oval office meaning to insult his nearly departed third it takes a while to get all the national security adviser and to facts out to the public. go after the press for revealing i wish everyone would watch your that the attacks on the weather show on msnbc. that's not the case. service that corrected trump's we do have to continue to highlight these issues. erroneous alabama forecast came from the president and his chief of staff. and it's something to have >> that's a whole hoax by the marryings, do the investigations
and bring the facts forward to fake news media when they talk about the hurricane and when they talk about florida and when the american people. they talk about alabama. >> we do spend a lot of time that's just fake news. talking about donald trump's criminality because of its right from the beginning it was a fake story. abundance. and on the question of corruption that seems to have >> and you know what that means, replaced the russia cloud that real as can be. he often talked to, the but it's those polls that show corruption cloud is the new one donald trump's political hanging over him. standing may be reaching a low i think if you can attribute his point that's leading to a sinking poll numbers to stories presidential unraveling. like turnberry to trying to here are those polls. donald trump loses to joe biden corrupt the national weather in head to head polling by 15 service to something i think your committee's going to look points. at, dangling of pardons in front donald trump loses to bernie sanders by nine points. of people who break the laws in donald trump losing to elizabeth carrying out his desired warren and kamala harris by immigration policies. what's the strategy on that larger umbrella of corruption seven points. donald trump loses to mayor pete and criminality inside the buttigieg should he be the federal government? nominee by four points. >> so, democrats have been the head to head polls we are running on an agenda of three reflecting with the latest presidential approval number items. it was health care, infrastructure, and the third reveals that trump's squandered one was getting rid of corruption. summer has taken a toll. and i think you're absolutely he slumped six points and he's right that this is bringing down back in the 30s nearing his his poll numbers. what we see in the polls is it lowest approval rating ever. doesn't matter if you're a "the washington post" notes, democrat or republican or quote, president trump trails independent, you don't like corruption. what the american people are
seeing is donald trump profiting potentialal democratic challenges. with approval ratings as low as off the presidency getting money for the trump organization for trump's are today. that is where we start with some him and his family and having of our favorite reporters and friends. the u.s. military do these stops with us from "the new york so they can stay at his luxury times" white house correspondent amy kearney. resort in scotland and then getting the weather service to nbc news correspondent heidi put false facts out there when their folks in birmingham have przybyla. msnbc correspondent garrett the real facts. haake. and at the table charlie sykes, so this is very troubling to editor in chief of the american people. >> break down the vote tomorrow. conservative news and opinion what does it mean, what does it website the bulwark. help you do? and eddie glaude. >> it allows us to have certain let me start with you. procedures in terms of reviewing grand jury testimony, having staff do interviews. it will expedite their there are presidential tells. one of them is sort of his inability to restrain himself. continuing impeachment inquiry that we've been in. >> congressman ted lieu, thank it's almost one of those obliterated norms that we are so you for spending time with us. used to, it barely registers. i know you're busy. i don't have any recollection of after hiring a national any past president using this security adviser became a anniversary and sort of between reality, a game of who's up and events which donald trump did who's down, national security attend to honor the anniversary officials made life and death decisions on days like today. ci. of 9/11 attacking his rivals on
3 out of 4 people achieved... his twitter feed and in that ...90% clearer skin at 4 months... oval office meeting we showed. ...after just 2 doses. >> well, yes. skyrizi may increase your risk of infections... i mean, we've seen him fire off ...and lower your ability to fight them. tweets when he's traveling before treatment your doctor should check you abroad on foreign soil, picking for infections and tuberculosis. political fights at home. tell your doctor if you have an infection... this is a somber day of ...or symptoms such as fevers,... ...sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs... remembrance and trump had events and on twitter we see where his ...or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. mind really is which is on this i feel free to bare my skin. poll. these kinds of events when it visit skyrizi.com. calls for a nation coming together and remembering, fighting on twitter about polls is more naturally where he tends to be. one thing that struck me about his tweet was the statement that he said i haven't even started campaigning, which that was what stood out to me the most there. first of all he had a kickoff rally in orlando in june which felt funny at the time because it was a kickoff to a campaign that had never really stopped for the past two years. he's been campaigning the whole time. he launched his re-election campaign days after his
inauguration. and more and more we see official white house events looking indistinguishable from campaign events. yesterday he gave a speech about hbcu's historically black colleges and universities. he talked about how he would (classical music playing throughout) poll with african-american voters and sympathy for the devil his campaign sunk play after he left the stage. so that really struck me that he says i haven't even started. he's never stopped. >> that's such a good point. what's so amazing is that axios had the schedules, and, annie, you and your colleagues have done extensive reporting and do on a nearly daily basis that there is no governing on his schedule ever. there is an occasional photo op to lend the appearance to governing but there's no actual governing that happens. for better or for worse, his critics may be relieved to hear that. >> i mean, his schedule is a fluid thing where he sits in the oval or in the dining room off the oval and watches tv and
calls people in as they come and policymaking does not have a structured process and is done on the fly. but, yeah. i mean, what he understands is a head-to-head political fight and that's what he has ahead of him. and everything, many battles, policies about right now are about his re-election. >> garrett haake, i think that what is revealed in this round of head to heads and some of the sinking approval ratings is that it blows out of the water this idea that nothing matters to his base. that may be true with the base, but the base isn't 44% of america. it's somewhere south of 38% of americans. and certainly his conduct and the idea that sort of the mueller cloud has been replaced by an almost darker cloud of corruption and incompetence, that has sent his poll numbers to some of the lowest of his presidency.
>> yeah. i mean, you look at those numbers coming out of texas. and i would largely discount a donald trump is now casting lot of the head to head numbers. a bout his fourth national this is before a dime has been spent on advertising and the general election which i think security adviser in less than three years. on a day like today the we raelds is probably going to anniversary of 9/11, it's a be one of the most negative elections one of us have ever seen. >> way to sell it, garrett. reminder of just how much that way to get me excited. job matters. condoleezza when the towers were [ laughter ] >> reporter: okay, everybody, hit was by president bush's side tune in. no, i mean, look, the as he plotted the next moves. president's numbers are stagnant even in a place like texas. outline what did kind of person he has completely turned off the she hopes will be in the position next. suburban voters in the state. in harris county, suburban >> somebody with integrity, houston where i am right now, somebody with judgment, somebody all the dallas suburbs we started to see this in 2018 when who recognizes that being a lot of these seats flipped to the democrats. national security adviser is not we are going to see more of a solo endeavor. those probably flipping in 2020 i liken it to being a point with all these republican retirements that we've seen around the state here. guard leading a basketball team. a lot of the key issues that i write about that in my book. drums that president trump like it is a team sport. to bang on don't play that well and we don't seem to have had in texas. that of late. this is a state that is >> but trump's national security enormously dependent on trade adviser isn't the only spot he has to fill. here. many own trump's national they have been nearly bulletproof through the
security team are just empty. recession. texas has gotten through that just fine. but the trade war makes people samanthapower, former u.n. nervous here. ambassador under obama, stressed and the immigration rhetoric the important of these jobs to our colleague rachel maddow last doesn't work here either. night. >> these jobs exist for a texans know mexicans. reason. that is our next door neighbor yes, there can be too much here. there is just a complete divorce bureaucracy. but to have senior people around between the rhetoric the the room who tell -- i hope this president uses about immigration happens in some room somewhere and what texans including in the trump administration, it's not evident that it does, republicans and independents see and feel every day. but where you have people with so, yes, i think the border crisis, the images of kids in different viewpoints who challenge propositions that are cages in texas cities is far at the table, bringing their more damaging to president trump different life experiences, among the voters he would like their different so-called to reach here than anything about mueller or russia or how equities, it's the complete opposite. he got elected in 2016 ever was here why did bolton lose his job? because he actually disagreed. or would be. >> so this is a day, is a hard >> and for anyone listening in their car or while you were day for all of the national security folks who worked for talking, garrett, donald trump george w. bush. at only 45% approval. i've been in touch with a lot of 50% disapproval. i want to ask you about guns. them today. you were in the government on i can't believe i'm about to 9/11. utter this sentence. talk about it. >> i also had the privilege of but over the summer, you covered two mass shootings in the state supervising the prosecution of of texas. how has the gun issue changed if the nev9/11 conspiracy in the at all in the state of texas? eastern district of virginia. this is a hard day for many >> reporter: it's really interesting. number one, we're seeing the reasons. to susan rice's point, right, it
democratic voters across the is a point guard analogy. country are now saying this is the most important issue to the national security adviser them. in texas the shooting in el paso oversees the national security and then again in odessa got a council, don't forget that. this is a group of men and women ton of news coverage here locally even beyond what we were with deep experience throughout talking about nationally. the government in national security matters. and so the idea is not to be the we saw the governor of the state convene these panels to dust it, not a lot has come from that so voice of national security, it's to be the orchestrator of the far. but texans have been super american response when national dialled in on it. i interviewed four of the security crises arise. democrats who were running to be the candidate to take on john like the attacks of 9/11. thank goodness we had cornyn in the senate here next year. condoleezza rice in that seat. all of them had far more this structure, by the way, the progressive gun control policies national security council was than i think you would ever see built after world war ii when in the state of texas. there was a good bit of three out of of the four said they were in favor of mandatory freelancing going on. it turned out fine, by the way. buy-backs for assault weapons. we won, thank god. everybody is on board with universal background checks. but the whole idea was to create that would have gotten you a structure in which an organized and thoughtful thrown out of events here in the response could be crafted. and that's what susan rice and state of texas six years ago, maybe four years ago. that's what condoleezza rice you saw a little bit of the beto got. o'rourke campaign for senate in >> steve hadley was another, the 2018 pushing the limits on that. other national security adviser the conversation has flipped who worked for george w. bush. dramatically in a state that has there's a selflessness about more guns than any other state.
people, condoleezza rice and susan rice became household but where responsible gun owners are saying this doesn't work the names because of some of the way we have this set up now. events that transpired on their >> heidi, how is that impacting watch. the debate in congress? but what's so uncomfortable about watching this it would seem that democrats who administration and having the have been frustrated. kind of debates that you talked i mean, president obama put the about should they say or go, should they talk or not talk, is entire weight of his presency that the arsonist is the behind gun control after the president of the united states. tragedy in newtown, but nothing and so we can talk around that. happened. it's fine. lots of days we have to, and we it would seem that in it's the should. parkland kids becoming activists but the bottom line is whether and sort of looking at the you love or hate john bolton, grownups in the room like, you whether you agree or disagree know, wtf or if it's the crush with every policy position he's ever, ever held, it's my and the pace and the clip of understanding from multiple mass shootings or if it's sources, he carried around a parents looking around at their fire extinguisher. kids when they come back from preschool having active shooter >> well, the other thing he did which undermines the whole drills, it feels like the process -- i mean, the national political tide is turning in security adviser, the usual favor of gun control efforts. narrative is it's an honest >> it does feel like there is a shift in intensity, nicole. broker. part of that is there's a structure of how you look at i was there after newtown issues using the national covering that gun control debate. and actually the first thing to security council. the principles committee, the deputies committee, that was all started under bush 41. happen that was the death canal for that legislation was the bolton got rid of that entire fact that red state democrats process. he was not -- he was a terrible
were so scared that they national security adviser wouldn't support it. because he's an ideologue, not a and so then it was hard for point guard or an honest broker, democrats to then go to even and because he undermined the moderate republicans and get process whereby expertise and them on board with the legislation because the fear of opinion could come up through the nra and the backlash was so the national security council to get to the president. that's a problem. pervasive. that's going to be a problem no you flash forward now to where matter who the national security adviser is now. >> and i guess that problem is the ground swell of activism, structural. the other problem is a president who's simply riding, you know, the intensity is really on the side of the gun safety community. is it mom's demand action? coochie coos for kim jong-un. yes. is it the parkland students? yes. they are all making their voices heard. and it is also the public, which i'm not sure. is starting to shift as well on i went to principles meetings for gwac, on terrorist issues like the assault weapons principles meeting for shutting ban which has been expired for down gitmo, i'm sure you did, decades. too, because it didn't happen and i just talked to actually a under our administrations. i'm not sure you need a policy prominent democratic senator process to improve upon this last night, nicole, who's been working on this gun issue. president's foreign policy debacle. the taliban should -- if trump he says that a number of had his way the taliban would republicans have privately approached him because they are have been a campaign incentive. >> really. remember he started -- bannon scared. they want the president to bring something forward on background gave us -- i keep going back to that moment. checks. they are worried about their own bannon gave us the three boxes.
political hides. one of them was to deconstruct and so the question is whether the president is going to show the administrative state. leadership here because mitch mcconnell has made clear he's all these acting folks, has had not putting anything on the floor that the president won't a clear and direct impact on sign. foreign policy, right. this president after every only trump can fix it. massacre seems to have a which means in interesting sorts familiar pattern where he flirts of ways that he's had to in some and says that he's going to do ways, in some ways eviscerate background checks, and then the all of these processes, these nra gets a hold of him, shakes structures, these departments him back into obedience, and he that have in some ways been key pulls back. to our safety. >> i don't think they shake very >> the key is donald trump. hard, charlie. as you point out, he's the it's still galling though, and i arsonist-in-chief. believe every word that heidi's this was a terrible appoint to name john bolton. reporting. but what in we're afraid of is he was not suit for the job and their political fate. obviously had a different world they're not galled or they don't view. the reason he did it was because publicly speak about being he saw him on tv, and think gauled by the clip of killings about this how central -- >> he argued for positions that of innocence. donald trump didn't agree with. >> and think about all of the >> the fundamental dynamics of foreign policy, major foreign this, the politics have not policy initiatives that are basically just reality tv shows changed because donald trump is going to run a base-only election. i think that he's afraid and in donald trump's mind, whether he's been told that this would it is, you know, the kim jong-un rattle his base. summit or this notion of look, you know, take those head bringing the taliban to camp
david. but the heart of this is that to head national poll numbers for what they're worth. there is no plan, there is no but also notice that in those strategy, it is only donald swing states that he won from hillary clinton, those numbers trump's impulses. are much, much closer. and i think he's becoming more and more comfortable going with this election's not going to be decided in california. the impulses, and those impulses it's not going to be decided in can be very, very dangerous. new york. it's going to be decided in going back to the question of places like ohio, wisconsin, should he speak out, if in fact pennsylvania, and michigan. and this issue will play these impulses are going to make differential there in some of the country less safe, i think the higher loyalty, higher those areas. patriotism, is the guys like >> you don't see it shifting? you got gun owners in favor of john bolton need to speak out about that because nobody else around him apparently is going background checks. to be restraining him. you got gun owners i mean, pompeo is out there overwhelmingly in favor of red flag laws. >> and they always have been. smiling and chortling because but there is this fear of going up against that hardcore intense he's won this bureaucratic war. he's next. he's going to find this out, as base that the nra represents. well, that donald trump does not now, i mean, we could be shocked want to have smart people who disagree with him. by donald trump. >> i think it's also sort of to but donald trump so far has not allowed any daylight between himself and the nra the our -- one of the weaknesses hardliners on all of this. and if he doesn't move, the that these conversations is to suggest that the foreign policy republican party's not going to has been hit and miss. move on all of this. and then i think they're going the foreign policy has been an to pay a huge price at the unadulterated debacle. polls. >> i think just to focus on >> exactly. >> right. >> we've gotten nowhere as a donald trump's weakness would be country in terms of the threat a mistake. that north korea represents.
this is also about the strength we've gotten nowhere as a of the democratic field. you've got five candidates from country after pulling out of the joe biden who just crushes iran deal. we've gotten nowhere -- in the donald trump. and i understand the limitations middle east, doesn't represent any sort of american values at of national head to head numbers. i've touted them when it's been all. he's supposedly the closest ally my candidate on top. on the world stage. i've dismissed them when it's he's moving us backward in every been my candidate on the bottom. way. >> i would love to hear from bob but the truth is indicators are corker who's no longer in the indicators, and the indicator is united states senate, as chairman of the -- you know, the that at least five democrats -- what was it -- the foreign beat donald trump handily. >> it allows us to put aside at relations committee. republicans in the senate, they least for a moment the question don't know this. in congress, they are looking at of electability as a way of this, they are looking at this determining who we should foreign policy that's left us support in the democratic field. more isolated and less because usually at least the argument in the preseason has been biden is the one who can respected. and of course this weird beat trump. fascination with the worst well now we have evidence, at decktators in the world. least the polls have been >> he likes their handle on the consistent to show that at least produce press, i guess. five, six people can beat trump. we'll be right back. ess, i guess we'll be right back. banjo? so then the question then becomes what are we to consider? do we need to consider where (man) hey. they stand on health care, go home. immigration, how far left are (woman) banjo! they going? where are they centrist? sorry, it won't happen again. where do they stand in the internal debate within the come on, let's go home.
party? then the third issue i think all of this boils down to turnout. it's going to be a base after 10 years, we've covered a lot of miles. election. good thing i got a subaru. we know what really is going to (man) looks like you got out again, huh, banjo. matter here is whether or not (avo) love is out there. find it in a subaru crosstrek. donald trump can expand his base and where he can get those rural but we're also a cancer fighting, voters to come out in massive numbers. this is what we saw innapecial . hiv controlling, we saw donald trump come down, joint replacing, and depression relieving company. generate some excitement. then we saw all of these folks from the day you're born show up. and it had an impact. we never stop taking care of you. even with regards to those suburban voters who had turned ♪ their nose against donald trump. and this is key. thousands of women with metastatic breast cancer his strategy at least it seems to me is to expand his base, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. those white voters who don't ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- breast cancer vote who are disaffected, and who he appeals to by way of some that has spread to other parts of the body - of the ugly things. >> and the other thing and meaning it's metastatic - garrett mentioned how negative as the first hormonal based therapy. this campaign is going to be. donald trump knows he doesn't ibrance plus letrozole significantly have to win this election. delayed disease progression versus letrozole. he has to have the democrats lose it. patients taking ibrance can develop he's got to have -- you know, in low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death.
2016 among voters who hated both before taking ibrance, candidates they broke heavily tell your doctor if you have fever, for him. i think you're going to have a chills, or other signs of infection, big chunk of voters who are liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, going to dislike both candidates by election day on 2020. or plan to become pregnant. and so the question is can common side effects include low red blood cell and donald trump run a negative low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, enough campaign to paint the nausea, sore mouth, democrats as more of a threat to abnormalities in liver blood tests, the republic than he is? diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, and i think that's going to be rash, and loss of appetite. at the heart of his strategy. >> annie karni, you and your be in your moment. colleagues in the paper and on ask your doctor about ibrance. your twitter feeds are pretty expert at sort of deciphering donald trump. i've seen a lot of notes in the last sort of 36 hours about how to tell what really bothers him. and it would appear that when it came to john bolton, it had less to do with policy differences. like very high triglycerides, and other than loving putin and can be tough. you diet. exercise. wanting to have the taliban at but if you're also taking fish oil supplements, camp david. you should know, but he's mad about the idea or they are not fda-approved, they may have saturated fat and the allegation or the belief may even raise bad cholesterol. that bolton leaked about him. and when it comes to these to treat very high triglycerides, discover the science of prescription vascepa.
polls, i think that it's been pointed out to me that he's proven in multiple clinical trials, aware of his weak political vascepa, along with diet, standing at the moment. but it's the coverage of the is the only prescription epa treatment, polls that so enrages him. approved by the fda to lower same with the democrats that he's not convinced that very high triglycerides by 33%, socialism wouldn't sell to some elements of his base, maybe some without raising bad cholesterol. working class white men that he look. it's clear. counts on that he's not there's only one prescription epa vascepa. convinced it wouldn't be -- is vascepa is not right for everyone. that all of it is sort of stage do not take vascepa if you are allergic to icosapent ethyl or craft that none of it at this any inactive ingredient in vascepa. point means much of anything to this president. tell your doctor if you are allergic to fish or shellfish, >> someone made the point that i have liver problems or other think is a really good one that medical conditions and about if you want to think about who any medications you take, especially those that may donald trump is most afraid of affect blood clotting. in terms of the democratic 2.3% of patients reported joint pain. field, it's whoever they are ask your doctor about vascepa. talking about on tv the most in prescription power. that moment. proven to work. that so much of how he thinks is reacting to coverage, and it always is. you brought up the bolton thing. the final straw according to our reporting was that bolton the latest season of chuck appeared to try to sort of leak rosenburg's amazing podcast "the that he had disagreed with trump about the meeting at camp david oath" is out. he talks to one of the with the taliban and also leaked this idea that pence had agreed prosecutors who helped convicted with him and not the president.
this was the final straw. 9/11's ma soui. the leaking, the appearing in thanks to everyone, and most of public to break with the all, thank you for watching. president or contradict him. that does it for us. but, yeah, he's watching how these people are playing. "npt daily" with chuck todd in terms of the campaign, the starts now. campaign operatives who are seasoned to some degree still believe that biden would be the biggest challenge for them in the race. the hardest candidate to make if it's wednesday, how the the socialism argument against republican win last night in north carolina could signal big the one who could most appeal to trouble for the president and some of trump's base and take his party, particularly in an that away from him. important swing state. so, yes, the polls show that all plus, as congress gets ready for a major vote on impeachment, of the candidates are beating him now. we'll speak with a democrat in charge of getting more democrats biden obviously would not have elected to the house. the same grassroots appeal among and what did the president democratic voters and who is to say he gets out the same kind of vote elizabeth warren would. noaa and when did he noaa it? but from the trump campaign's a report draws a straight line from trump to the perspective, he still is mentioned to me most as the hardest challenger for trump. >> because he threatens that coalition. >> he threatens to appeal to the same kind of voters that trump appeals to. >> all right.
we have some breaking -- >> oh, go ahead, annie. >> i was just going to make one more point about the negatives -- sorry, you know, in terms of trying to drag his opponents -- or drive them up. he will never have an opponent whose negatives are as high as hillary clinton's were. that was a unique race where both candidates were really -- both had like upside down numbers. both were really disliked. and both voters had strong opinions of both of them that were hard and fast. and it was hard to change those. he will not have an opponent where there is a view quite like there was with hillary clinton. >> all right. i'm going to act out that breaking news graphic. breaking news we are learning this hour the trump administration will not grant temporary protected status to people from the bahamas displaced by hurricane dorian. the news comes as authorities there announce that there are at least 2,500 people missing, 2,500 people, as a result of hurricane doran.
nbc new's julia ainsley is here with more. i've watched your reporting yesterday on morning joe and other places and it would appear that the worst-case scenario for the victims of this hurricane has come to pass. tell us about it. >> reporter: it is, nicole. so temporary protected status has been granted at this point to ten countries. there are over 300,000 people in the united states now with temporary protected status. they have left things like haiti's 2010 earthquake and they are allowed to live here and work here until the u.s. has determined it's safe to return for their country. >> how is that possible? i'm just looking at these pictures while you are talking. how is that possible, julia? >> reporter: it's not that it doesn't compare to some of the devastation we have seen elsewhere. it's that this administration has a completely different way of looking at temporary protected status. there have been people with different groups that they have revoked temporary protected status to, even though they know
the conditions and they aren't given the advice in the reports to show that the conditions have changed at all. they will still revoke this temporary protected status. what they do have is a way for people from the bahamas to come here temporarily on visas, that is if they can find their passports and visas in the middle of all of this destruction, they can come to the united states temporarily. but it's very temporary and they cannot work. a temporary protected status would allow someone really to stay in the country for years, sometimes ten or 15 years we've seen people stay. and they really plug into the community and almost become like americans after they leave this country. so that will not be granted to the people from this place, which is devastating for them. if they're going to try to wait out however long it takes for the recovery of such devastation, they are going to need to be able to work in order to do that. and right now the united states is saying that the state department will not be authorizing or requesting temporary protected status on
their behalf. >> it's unbelievable. garrett, you said a couple minutes ago that the immigration issue cuts differently in texas. i mean, i don't think that warning or scaring or fearmongering about people from the bahamas sounds like a particularly winning message in any battleground state, let alone in texas. is this the sort of kind of overreach on a topic like immigration that you're hearing on the campaign trail may have gone too far for some voters? >> we'll have to wait and see. i wonder if something like this just becomes part of the drip, drip, drip of whatever the latest sort of off the wall thing from the white house is that people start to tune out. it is wholly consistent with every other restrictionist immigration policy that this president has made. i have a hard time imagining that any democrat or democrat-leaning voter who didn't think the president's immigration policies were crazy before would look at this and think, ah-hah, perhaps this is the moment he's gone too far. but it is fully in line with what democrats have said is essentially a totally heartless
immigration policy. and i'm sure we will hear more about it from the democratic candidates. >> i mean, i guess the difference is no one in the bahamas was trying to come here. their homes were obliterated. the pictures that we're showing looks like a nuclear blast. so the difference between sort of the bucket of cruel immigration policies is that no one from the bahamas was trying to come here for a better life. they were happy in the bahamas by and large. but they are now homeless because their homes have been wiped out. >> so politics aside, this is evil, this is cruel. any idea of the country as kind of this moral beacon to the world, this contradicts it quite clearly. >> this is what made america great is that we were always there at moments like this, you know? >> not for black people. >> and i'm going to apologize in advance for this. donald trump thinks of the bahamas as a [ bleep ] hole country. he doesn't want people from those countries to come here. and so, yeah, it is hard to escape that because it is the
kalousness, it is the cruelty. it is the unchristian attitude. >> i was about to say that. >> where are the christians in all this. but what is your christianity if you look at those pictures and say we are not there for you. we are not going to provide some sort of assistance for you? so it's unamerican, it's unchristian, and unfortunately i do think that there will be people who will be disgusted by this. i don't know how many people will be disgusted by it. but you're right. >> and i think at the same time, charlie, there will be a whole bunch of people who won't. >> we know that. >> and we ask ourselves the question what does that say about who we are because that's cruel. that's not only cruel. that's evil. and we need to call it for what it is. that's evil. >> it's certainly unbelievable. my thanks to julia ainsley, annie karni, heidi przybyla, and garrett haake. thank you all for spending some time with us. we are grateful. after the break we have our answer to who called the code red on the weather service. new reporting takes it all the
way to the top like the guy in the office with no corners top. and the house judiciary committee is off and running on gun control and on donald trump's alleged abuse of power. but with so many scandals and so little time, how can they assure the public that investigations will be completed? we'll ask a member of that committee in the center of just about every political storm in washington this week. and 9/11 drives home the crisis of all the vacancies and key natural security positions. we'll talk to two former national security officials about the danger of donald trump being home alone. all those stories coming up. about it? now there's a solution! downy wrinkleguard is a fabric conditioner that helps protect you from wrinkles all day. just pour the dye free liquid into the rinse dispenser. after a day of wear, pants washed with downy wrinkleguard and detergent are virtually wrinkle free. it even comes unscented.
if you don't love downy wrinkleguard, we'll give you your money back. set yourself free with fleet. gentle constipation relief in minutes. little fleet. big relief. try it. feel it. feel that fleet feeling.
and as if his approval numbers and his polling against democrats weren't enough to suggest that president trump has reached peak desperation, we are learning today that he's also resorted to personally waging a war onned with and the people who report on it -- weather and the people who report on it. "the washington post" reveals that the white house and donald trump himself were behind threats of weather forecaster who's forecasted the weather. the white house was directly involved in pressing a federal scientific agency to repudiate the weather forecasters who contradicted president trump's alabama.t hurricane dorian that's according to several people familiar with the events. mick mulvaney, the acting white house chief of staff, told wilbur ross -- that alabama was not at risk. the with. april "post" adds that the
president himself that hurricane dorian posed a significant threat to alabama as of september 1st. in contrast with the agency's forecasters were predicting at the time. that's according to senior administration officials. trump had complained for several days about the issue according to the senior official who's spoke anonymously because of the sensitivity of the matter. joining our conversation former u.s. attorney and former senior fbi chuck rosenberg and rick stengel, former managing editor at time magazine. why does this story matter? >> it matters for a couple of reasons. first, nicole, you would hope that there's company, a grownup somewhere who would say i'm just not going to do that. what you're asking me to do doesn't make sense. i remember many years in graduate school professors saying never hire anybody who's desperate for the job. hire somebody with enough
professional detachment who can walk away. that's an important thing. here's another reason why it matters. if i were president, and by the way, i'd rather have a root canal every day for four years. [ laughter ] i would surround myself with the most experienced, smartest people i could find. some people think of that as the deep state. but i would want professional career civil servants with expertise in their fields. those are the people who can make or break an administration. those are the people who really know what's going on and how to execute on policy. and so undermining them strikes me not just as wrong but as incredibly foolish. >> i think this story matters because it's so easy to understand. he went to war against weather forecasters. in my time in government, i never met any weather forecasters because there was never any question about noaa products or documents. this is about an administration
so deep down the tunnel of disinformation that they are shaking the scientists down. >> yes. when you were reading the preamble there and you described it as a federal scientific agency, that's what it is. it is about science. science is about facts and truth. it's about questioning facts if they're wrong and debating them. but ultimately all of those civil servants and everybody works there feels accountable to the facts and to science at large. the problem with donald trump is like in "alice and wonderland," nothing is a fact until he says it's a fact. even if you are looking at it, it's wrong. so this whole -- you know, one of the things this disinformation that he practices is that he alone is the person who decides what is fact and what is fiction. >> you know, i'm so upset i'm foxing over my water here. but general hayden said at an event that his attacks are attacks on evidence-based
sciences. law enforcement, science, the judiciary. i mean, we now have had two years since he made that prescient comment. i guess my fear is if he's willing to take a pen to a forecast where it affects the back to school plans and back-to-school shopping and the safety of the citizens of an entire state, what's he doing to, i don't know, research from the nih or classified images from the pentagon or, you know, what's he doing that we don't know about? >> and there's also another ominous development over that we've seen over the last couple of weeks that the president is figuring out how he can use the levers of power. one of the things that's protected us so far has been two things, the adults in the room but also donald trump's incompetence. but imagine what a second term would be like where the president realizes i can bend all of these agencies to my will. i can tell the air force where to refuel. i can tell the department of justice, you know, who to launch anti-trust investigations or who to indict.
we are seeing a president who is maybe unraveling but he's also unrestrained. so a president who you go so far as to get the weather service to support him. what other things is he going to do? because who's around the oval office saying no, and who in congress so far has basically said, no, you can't touch that hot stove? he gets away with it. >> even when a 22-month investigation finds willihim to committed acts of injustice. >> if donald trump figures this out, things can get a lot worse. >> because the kind of summary sentence of this is that everything and everyone must submit to his will. and to the extent to which that is true, to the extent to which it is evidenced and practiced, democracy, our democracy is in danger. everything and everyone must
submit to this guy's will. >> let me put you on the spot as a former what it would appear john bolton did. contradicted only by the president at this point. it's what jim mattis did. it's what you did. it's what a handful of others have done. does he have an obligation to speak out? >> yes and no. i mean, i want to say yes because that seems like the easy answer. but i also believe any president, even perhaps a crazy one is entitled to have some degree of respect and loyalty for the position. i struggle with this. does he have to speak out? no. should he speak out? perhaps. would i like him to speak out? absolutely. and along that spectrum, nicole, i really struggle with that. people often ask that a similar question. should you stay or go? as if it's only -- well, it is a
binary choice but as if the binary choice is obvious. >> or black and white. >> black and white, up or down, yes or no. people who i know struggle with that as well. in the end i think both of those questions are very personal questions. >> but the line seems to me, and i've seen mattis said i'm old-fashioned, i don't believe in criticizing or talk about a current president. i'm old-fashioned too. i remember when that was the case. >> and i respect that. but the line is i'm a patriot. if i feel that the country is being jeopardized to theaggrega standard and say something. so, i could only include -- i mean, he didn't say that that he doesn't feel that's the case because i can't imagine or i hope it's not true that if he felt that was the case and was still being circumspect about saying anything. >> well, and john bolton told
nbc news today that he will say in due course. russian interference pardoning illegal acts, so much alleged misconduct in so little time. we will speak to a member of the house judiciary committee as well as democrats to take the initiative on gun control. that's next. that's next. you should be mad at forced camaraderie. and you should be mad at tech that makes things worse. but you're not mad, because you have e*trade, who's tech makes life easier by automatically adding technical patterns on charts and helping you understand what they mean. don't get mad. get e*trade's simplified technical analysis. this fall, book two, separate qualifying stays at choicehotels.com... ...and earn a free night. because when your business is rewarding yourself, our business is you. book direct at choicehotels.com
so chantix can help you quit slow turkey.rkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix. you get more than yourfree shipping.ir, you get everything you need for your home at a great price, the way it works best for you, i'll take that. wait honey, no. when you want it. you get a delivery experience
you can always count on. you get your perfect find at a price to match, on your own schedule. you get fast and free shipping on the things that make your home feel like you. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now! with time, comes change that's for sure... and when those changes might help more people, especially those in retirement, i think it's worth talking about! so, aag is introducing a new jumbo reverse mortgage loan so you can now access as much as $4 million dollars in cash, tax free, from your home's equity. aag's new jumbo reverse mortgage loan can give you more tax-free cash than ever before. if you've had your home for a while, it's probably worth a lot more today. so why not use that appreciation for anything you need maybe it's some home repairs, or updates to make it more comfortable so you can stay in the place you love. it's a viable effective way to support your
other investments long into the future, and another way aag is working to make your retireme... better. don't wait. get your info kit now! >> the senate did not come back to pass the bill. i'm getting very angry about the silliness of these questions. lives are at stake. senator mcconnell is standing in the way. we passed our bill in february. members had events all over the country to ask him to bring up the bill. don't ask me what we haven't done. we have done it. and if you are annoyed with my impatience, it's because people are dying while senator mcconnell hasn't acted.
why don't you go ask him if he has any regrets for all the people who died because he hasn't acted. >> strong words from a fed-up nancy pelosi. she's waiting on mitch mcconnell who is, in turn, waiting on the president for word on what exact specific measures he would like passed for their part. democrats are trying house judiciary committee advanced three gun control measures yesterday along party lines aimed at preventing high-risk people from owning guns and banning high-capacity ammo magazines. that comes as the committee prepares to vote tomorrow on establishing hearings for impeachment, a clear escalation in that effort. but on the topic of guns no matter what they pass in committee, nothing will ultimately happen unless donald trump agrees to go along. a bipartisan group of senators made their last-ditch effort to bring him around on background checks on a phone call this afternoon. they are expecting him to make a decision tomorrow. specifics of course still up in the air.
republican pat toumy described their phone as this. joining us now from capitol hill, democratic congressman ted lu, you are so busy, we are grateful that you're here. do you believe donald trump and the republicans are interested in doing anything on gun control, sir? >> i believe that abe ram lincoln had a right when he said public sentiment is everything. without it nothing can fail, without it nothing can succeed. we know that their policies on gun control and gun safety have not worked over many decades. and what we need is to try a new approach. that's why the house judiciary
committee we passed out three gun safety measures late last night. >> take us through what happens next. is the strategy for them to pass and then go over to the senate? or is the strategy something less than that to shame the republicans or to get some political votes on the board? >> so the house of representatives already passed on a bipartisan basis a universal background checks bill to u.s. senate. it is 97% support among the american public. we are trying to put pressure on senator mitch mcconnell to take that bill up for a vote. if it goes up for a vote it will pass the u.s. senate. and our hope is that we can get that through to their presidency and have donald trump sign it. we do need the public to continue calling in to both the white house and to the u.s. senate to get them to take that bill up for a vote. >> let me turn to the investigations. your committee turning to what would seem like a bucket of abuse of power, largely witnesses that were named in robert mueller's report, people like don mcgahn, the former
[crowd gasp] ♪ with clearer skin, movie night is a groovy night. [ting] ♪ live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla. >> dana: an appeals court hearing underway now. president trump is watching his lawyers argue in front of a three-judge panel in the d.c. appeals court whether he can be charged because he is looking for immunity since he was the president of the united states. this is all about the jack smith case against the president. about inciting an insurrection. his lawyers are trying to make examples of previous presidents, including a question of whether president george w. bush could be prosecuted after he was president for what they say -- a trump lawyer saying -- that bush lied about going into war with iraq. that the pretense was false.
presidential immunity claim. special counsel jack smith asked the supreme court to settle this issue immediately but the supreme court denied the request punting this issue to the circuit court. here we are today. we expect to hear not from the former president, at least in the courtroom. we'll hear from his attorneys. each side gets about 20 minutes here. it could go much longer than that. as for the judge's hearing this there are three judges. two were appointed by president biden, one by then president george h.w. bush. we expect they could decide it quickly and take it up to the supreme court. the former president's trial on election interference is on hold until this issue gets settled. ist is suppose evidence to get started march 4th but it is expected that could be delayed. >> bill: jonathan turley joins us to give us his expectations. good morning to you. three judges as rich mentioned one appointed by bush 41 in 1990. the other two women appointed by biden in 2022.
the way the former president is reaching out on truth social and through his rallies and has been gaining strength politically as each indictment piled up, each legal challenge. they came out with a campaign ad from the trump campaign. this is not from a super pac. it's one of the toughest i have seen in an election, going back to some of the really noteworthy ones, infamous ones. >> you covered a few. >> dukakis and bush 41 and some of the others. this one is also against the new york attorney general and also against the prosecutor here, jack smith. also joe biden, of course. let's watch some of it. >> what do you call someone this weak? someone caught in a bribery scandal that made them millions? complicit in a government coverup. and uses your government to get
it is a strategic hope, not a tactical path. again, the question to me, and they may not -- sorry. they may not tell us, right? the margin in this election may be that some of these folks end up voting for president biden but can't admit it because it'll mess up the golf round, and so maybe they're just going to do it and shake their heads, you know, when their harder core friends talk about how terrible it is that trump lost. i think this is the story we have to tell. i think it's the case we have to make. i say this as somebody who is deeply sympathetic, as you know and mike knows, with that reagan, bush 41 world. this is not coming from a trotsky-ite. >> jon meacham putting it into clear perspective. great to see you. perhaps one of the most esteemed
republicans, we've called them peter malarves republicans, how many decide they can vote for the president opposed to the former president? that may decide everything. >> a term you coined on the show, men's grill enablers, which has stuck with us around here. >> yes. >> jon, you and i have had this conversation on and off the air, which is, people we know very well, old line republicans, reagan, bush republicans, people who liked mitt romney and john mccain and believe that character is important, who mocked donald trump in 2015 and the early stages of 2016, he's a joke, a clown, i'd never do business with him, influential men and women in their own right, hopped on board in 2016. the explanation was, oh, it can't be hillary. are you hearing when you speak to those people that we both know very well, are you seeing any cracks in their support of donald trump? do they say, "well, if it comes down to him or biden, i have to
an imperial presidency, when we think about next, and the scope of executive power that informed not only -- not simply about breaking into the opponents headquarters, it's also about the scope of what the president can do. >> what about bush 41? bush 41's bill barr, supposed to be a safe pick. he comes in and he believes in the imperial presidency. trump believes in the imperial presidency. suddenly it's okay for donald trump. he starts thinking to arrest joe biden two weeks before the election and he orders barr to do it. >> unchecked presidential power. unchecked executive power. that, i think, informs this interesting moment of conversion, as you rightly described. >> well, actually you told me before the show, but yes please, give me the credit. >> it's not just about trump about a bad actor, someone not committed to the norms that govern our society. it's also that corporate interests, about deregulation. it's about deconstructing the