my thanks to bill rutger, donna edwards, michael steele and to you for watching. thank you so much. >> that does it for our hour, i'm nicole wallace. mtp daily starts right now with my friend chuck todd. >> i know what you say. >> these uva people can't give it up. one time. if it's hump day, i spy on attorney general, giving credence to conspiracy theories. well, good evening, i'm chuck todd here in washington. welcome to meet the press daily.

attorney general bill barr did something extraordinary on capitol hill. he didn't just say what the president wanted to hear, although he did do that and he didn't make an explosive claim of what might have led to the investigation. he did that, too. the chief law enforcement officer went in front of congress and gave credence to a factless cominspiracy theory. >> i think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. big deal. >> so you are not suggesting, though, that spying occurred. >> i don't. well -- i guess i think there was a spying did occur, yes, i think spying did occur. >> well. >> the question is whether it was predicated. adequately predicated. i'm not suggesting it wasn't adequately predicated. but i need to explore that. >> using the word spying plays into the president's language

that the russia investigation to him is just a witch hunt and everyone time they've brought up this allegation, there has been zero factual basis for it. every effort to perpetrate the spying conspiracy theory has been debunkd. i'll get to that in a moment. barr said in a hearing he has no specific everyday about wrong doing at the department. you don't get to put the toothpaste back into the tube, do you? maybe it was because president trump was making the same accusation literally as the attorney general was testifying before congress. >> what has been found during this period of time are the illegal acts of getting this whole phony investigation started. and, hopefully, that's where people are going now. that's where people are going. and it's very interesting. it was an illegal investigation, major. it was an illegal investigation. it was started illegally. everything about it was crooked. >> with me now is greg bower,

former assistant director for the office of the congressional affairs at the fbi, so he knows a thing or two about the fbi and his relationship with congress. and jason johnson is the politics editor at the root and msnbc contributor and alphonse aguilar is chief of the u.s. office of citizenship under president george w. bush. i do want to play mr. barr's kind of walkback from the initial conversation, greg, and i want to get your reaction to it. let's get the walkback in here. this is sat 3, guys, barr trying to clarify his spying accusation. >> i just want to make it clear thinking back on all the different colloquys here that i am not saying that improper under surveillance occurred. i'm saying that i am concerned about it and looking into it. that's all. >> well, what do you make of all of it now?

you saw the initial sort of dramatic unveiling that mr. barr had. then he ends up, pay no attention to what i said. >> cluck, i watched it live and was concerned that his first statement, was a little relieved at his second, it clearly wasn't good enough after he dropped that bomb. i'm afraid at best he confused things. at worse i think he confirmed the worst fears of his critics, which is that he is playing politics with this, he is out to appease an audience of one. i'd like to think that itself not the case. it's hard to argue with that watching his performance today. >> the issue of fisa abuse and the concern about it, i'd take it that members of congress should be concerned about it. explain how serious the fbi does take it? >> well, it's an incredibly serious process with an incredibly ro bust layer of oversight including by the fisa court, itself. as was pointed out today, the

inspector general at the department of justice is doing a comprehensive review of the relevant fisa applications in question here. but what's interesting about the attorney general's comments today is the fact that his own deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, who was involved at least at the latter stages of these subject fisas, could simply explain to the tomorrow exactly what happened and no doubt would explain that there was nothing illegal and there was no misconduct. and the fact that the attorney general hasn't received is that briefing and doesn't have that understanding is puzzling to me. >> you know, anne geren. we know this is theinthe president wants and all this stuff. but it did seem as if now that mr. barr has put himself in a position where he's now a political actor in the eyes of every democrat and perhaps some republicans. >> yeah. i mean i think he sort of completed that course.

right. the four-page memo, being step one. and as greg said, this will confirm the worst suspicions of his critics. but i think barr was doing a couple of things here. i mean, first of all he wanted to obviously get and deliberately chose an explosive word that has a lot of connotations in -- >> he chose his word carefully. it wasn't an accident. >> echose it carefully. it wasn't an accident and jeanne shaheen gave him a chance to clean it up in the moment. he didn't. he used the word again. he came back to it to say that what everybody knows is what i'm dock here is whether this spying was okay, not whether they were spying or not. so he chose that deliberately and he chose it and to do it the way he did so that president trump would know and the only part of this whole entire conversation that trump will ever hear is i believe spying occurred part. right? >> it's all his own bases heard.

you should see e-mails i am getting from the viewers over the years that bought into this bizarre conspiracy theory of their that somehow hillary clinton worked with the russians to create this conspiracy. they're like through the moon. >> you don't have to go all the way into the conspiracy theory. >> this is the problem i have with that. to me and i respect mueller's investigation of potential collusion, to me it sound like a conspiracy, something very difficult to prove. i don't know if we had evidence that, you know, generated enough suspicion to begin an investigation of collusion, that trump clued with the highest levels of the kremlin to impact our election. i think we have enough evidence to at least have concern about how the counterintelligence investigation began and on whether there was some improper under surveillance. he said during the testimony that he did have some additional

evidence that he wasn't ready to share. >> he also said he wasn't going to open an -- here was the open part, though, he laid out an investigation, ah, i'm not financial to investigate it. >> that means you don't believe the allegation. if it's as serious as he claimed, then actually you are the attorney general, your words matter here. >> right. it was very trump-like. wasn't it, chuck? like some people are saying. a lot of people are saying, but with no evidence. >> he's not a pundit anymore. >> not with him saying he's going to look at it just the same way -- >> he said he didn't. that's my point. in the same breath, he said, well, i'm not talking about opening an investigation. i don't understand what he was doing here. it feels like he did politics here. >> this is a part of the larger issue of undermining the very people are you in charge of. that's also what he did. by basically saying i think a lot of these people in the department of justice have been engaging in inappropriate behavior. are you right, it was attempting

to play to an audience of one. you know the difference, you stole my car. actually i lent you my car. >> that is what he is saying, it's spying, i don't know if it's an ina appropriate observation, they constantly undermining our fbi, cia and suggesting they continent be trusted which brings problems for what our investigators can do. it means his leadership is tainted. >> greg, what was the fbi supposed to do when you had active multiple attempts of russians clearly trying to infiltrate the trump campaign? pure and simple? that is we are debating when the trump campaign knew what was going on. it is indisputable the number of attempts they made to infiltrate that campaign? >> what was the fbi supposed to do? for truly exactly what we know it did. that's the answer. so again, i raised the fact that for this tomorrow who has been on the job, not long now, but enough if he wanted to be fully

briefed on exactly what happened. keep in mind as i mentioned, his own deputy attorney general approved some of the under surveillance and has briefed members of congress of what happened. >> richard burr, by the way, every time richard noonan, he says, well, i seen the allegation and he has to correct devon nunez. >> let me say and also the current general at the fbi also when he was acting, i think he was acting deputy attorney general at the time. >> he was also the u.s. attorney in the eastern district of virginia. >> also involved in approving under surveillance. why he can't get a briefing by all of those. it's not as he suggested today, well, i'm not criticizing the fbi. i'm criticizing certain former leaders. no, no, he in effect criticize his own dag and own fbi today. in defense of them, there is no evidence of any wrong doing at a all. >> alphonse, i go es the question here is if you believe that things were started under

political suspicion. right? that's the charge from the right. why act so politically? i mean, i'm sorry, what he ended up doing, two wrongs don't make a right here if you believe a wrong happened. >> i'm not saying it was the most articulate what i to say it. clearly it wasn't. it wasn't the appropriate timing when the president had just -- >> he chose to do it this way. they knew what they were doing. this isn't an accident. >> how do we know that? do we know that for shoo you are? we're speculating here. my only point is i didn't like the way he said it, but if there are -- i don't think he was talking only to an audience of one. there are many who question how this investigation began. there was under surveillance and he said it, he wants to know if there was improper under surveillance. what's the problem with that? can we look at that? >> that's all the information that was available to him. he knew it. he still made the statement he made. that's why this is a problem. none of this is a mystery anymore. it's been two years.

we have tons of investigation, external and internal that showed nothing bad happened. no one was trying to spy on this president through his microwave whatever it was he was suggesting a year-and-a-half ago. for the new attorney general to sit there and reopen the pandora's box, that doesn't help us -- >> by the way and it doesn't matter what the truth is. does it? i mean, i hate to say this now, that's the whole point. it feels like that basical will i the attorney general gas lit the country. >> it matters to me, it matters to you, to those of those who are reporting. >> not that it's not going to matter whatever the truth is, people have already decided. >> yes, absolutely. i think that's completely fair. and it's something that barr knows going in, as did many of the senators who were asking him questions today. >> that the country's mind is made up here. and, you know, and trump was able to before during and after

the barr testimony, you know, continue to put out his version of it, which, you know, he called this phony, crooked treasonous and illegal like five times today. the people who believe that with him will hear only that and will hear barr's words as further evidence of that. people who don't will see it the opposite way. >> i want to transition to another piece of news he made. we did finally get some questions on the decision he made to not recommend an obstruction of justice charge against the president. i want, guys, i'm setting up sot 2. i want to let people know that barr, himself, did say he had a conversation with mueller about why he didn't make the obstruction charge. he said he would explain what that conversation was down the road. but here's an exchange between chris van hollen and mr. barr. >> i'm asking you whether you agree with mueller that there

were difficult issues of law, in fact, making that assessment? >> it's not a question i really can answer until i -- >> well, you did it. but you looked at the report. right? and you looked at the evidence of the report and you made a decision and you said that the president's not guilty of criminal obstruction of justice. i'm asking you in your review of the report, did you agree we mueller that there were difficult issues of law, in fact? >> i am going to give my reaction and comments about the report after the report comes out. >> well, it would have been -- but you put your view of the report out. >> you know, it's that last point i want to pick up. has barr already taint -- basically he put his thumb on the scale without telling us how he came to the conclusion. >> that's what's so confusing about this as i said before, bob mueller is the last guy who are doj veterans would expect to hand off a tough decision as apparently happened according to that march 24th letter and bill barr, frankly, is the last guy

who should take on that decision, blgiven the memo he wrote. none of this makes sense. both of them have to testify. the report has to be -- they have a lot of explaining to do. it doesn't make sense. >> he didn't have to make the decision. barr could have waited until he was ready to read the report. making the decision without letting anybody read the report seems to be his decision. >> i don't think so. he reaches a conclusion. we will see in a week he says the report and he did say, and i think that letter that he september was very objective. he said, mr. mueller said that there was evidence that shows obstruction of justice and evidence that proves that there wasn't obstruction of justice. he is basic ally telegraphing to congress there may be evidence there that could prove the charge of obstruction of justice. but he concluded there wasn't.

so we will continue debating this, his conclusion, ask the attorney general. >> we don't know if mr. mueller was putting it in that decision because it couldn't be made at justice only according to constitution could be made by one entity, congress. when it comes to the president of the united states. >> and i think the other part is we have to look back, all of this is also tainted, balls we already knew what barr's opinion was, we knew it a year ago when he said he didn't believe in this investigation. here's what happens with the problem of the letter and decisions he's made. when you come to an answer this quickly, it's like in 6th grade math. you got to show us your work. he gave us a four-page document which is supposed to explain 400 words. >> jason, the report will be color coded. it will be awesome. >> congress. the everyday is there. congress could still proceed. >> no doubt. >> and if there is evidence

there that they find troubling. >> here's the thing, and i got to let it go here. the president has successfully muddied everything that he wanted to on the mueller report and nobody has yet read a single sentence. that's the fact. that's the world we live in right now. how we got here? we can all speculate on the motivation how we got to this point. this is where we are. thank you very much, sir. panel, you get to stick around. wait until we get to healthcare. up ahead, we'll talk to the secretary general, what he says about the law officer's wild claims. ays about the law officer's wild claims 400 horsepower sedan, that's also environmentally conscious. we don't follow entional wisdom. ♪ ♪ we really pride ourselves >> ton making it easyautoglass, to get your windshield fixed. >> teacher: let's turn in your science papers. >> tech vo: this teacher always puts her students first. >> student: i did mine on volcanoes. >> teacher: you did?! oh, i can't wait to read it.

>> tech vo: so when she had auto glass damage... she chose safelite. with safelite, she could see exactly when we'd be there. >> teacher: you must be pascal. >> tech: yes ma'am. >> tech vo: saving her time... [honk, honk] >> kids: bye! >> tech vo: ...so she can save the science project. >> kids: whoa! >> kids vo: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ they're america's biopharmaceutical researchers. pursuing life-changing cures in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that.

♪ applebee's bigger, bolder grill combos. now that's eatin good in the neighborhood. i was tired of having my calls dropped, and then i'd heard that i could get apple music if i switched over and i said, "boom!" (vo) the best network is even better with apple music on us. plus save big when you switch. only on verizon.

all of you. how you live, what you love. that's what inspired us to create america's most advanced internet. internet that puts you in charge. that protects what's important. it handles everything, and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi, this is xfi. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity, the future of awesome. . welcome back after first saying in his hearing that spying did occur. attorney general bill barr said he was saying not that spying occurred, just saying it might have occurred. the president's staunchest allies were off and running with his original comments. you know what they say, what can travel halfway around the world in a second, anyway, donald

trump, jr. tweeted this is a big deal and everyone knows it. they tweeted now the investigation is flipped. well, if you are confused. so am i. louisiana republican senator john kennedy. he was one of the senators who questioned the attorney general this morning. senator kennedy, always good to hear from you and see you, sir. >> thank you, chuck. good to be with you, man. >> let me start with i'm just straight up confused. did the attorney general today, did he say there was spying on the trump campaign and then saying he wasn't going to investigate it? because i heard both of those comments today. i'm more confused than i think i should be. >> well, here's what i heard, which i think is factual and i asked him about this. we think that there were a handful of people in 2016 at the

fbi maybe at the justice department who chose to investigate both presidential campaigns, not just president trump's campaign, but secretary clinton's campaign as well. and the issue, of course, is were they in good faith? if they weren't, if they were acting on their parochial political beliefs, all i want from them is away, i want them gone. >> that means they can't have political beliefs. they just can't act on them. i think it's a fact that both campaigns were investigated. now, you can call it spying or whatever you want to, i think -- >> no, no, senator, i go es the thing that when the attorney general of the united states, the chief law enforcement of america calls an investigation spying, you know what that does

to the perception of the fbi, that's tooth pait that will be very hard to shove back into that tube, calling the if ib fib a spying agency. and i know perhaps that is what he wanted it to come across as, but it was an fbi investigation. he is now calling it spying. >> well, i can't tell you why the tomorrow used that choice of words. i can't, chuck. i can just tell you i think, what i heard him say and in context and what i think is a fact is that the fbi and some members of the justice department in 2016 investigated both the trump campaign and the clinton campaign. not just one campaign? right. >> and the issue is, and i hope barr does find out. were they in good faith? or were they acting on parochial political beliefs. and that's a very fair question. i want to know that it's a serious matter when in the middle of a presidential campaign when each party is

nominated its candidate for the fbi to decide to investigate the campaign? >> senator, there already have been multiple investigations on this, there was an inspector general investigation, which got andy mccabe fired. it didn't find fisa abuse. there has been multiple investigations, the house republicans and the intel committee have done a bunch of stuff. it turned out none of it was true. richard burr has debunked a lot of these allegations, himself. and the senate intel, i guess, how many more investigations do we need? are they just looking for an investigation just so they can say there's one? >> well, i'm not talking about the need for another investigation. i think the way you're talking about it, chuck, i want to know did they have credible evidence, were they in good faith in investigating secretary clinton and her campaign and in investigating president trump in his campaign? and here's the short way home to this. rather, you are right, rather

than doing another investigation, there is an easier way. the president talked about it in september. justify declassify properly redacted all of the documents that the fbi about the investigations of presidential campaigns if 2016, let the american people see them. they've got to be properly redacted. let the american people see them and the american people will draw their own conclusions. you know what, they'll be right. >> you called the attorney general last night. you called him a straight shooter. are you worried he is giving up his sort of political, whatever political capital he had going into this, that he's now looking more partisan, maybe it's not his intent, but in some of his actions, in fact, how he's handling the mueller report or using the spying that he's giving up that impartiality that you thought he had? >> no and here's why. mr. mueller made his report. now, mr. barr had two choices. he could have did what he did,

give a summary and say i will release the properly redacted full report later or he could have said nothing. in the meantime, it's apparently taking a while to no through the report to do the redactions. in the meantime, we have more rumor and innuendo and speculation and the longer you wait, chuck, the more risk you run it's going to leak. that's why he's got to be careful giving an unredacted copy to congress. it's not that congress can't handle it. it's that when's the last time you saw an important document given to the united states congress that didn't leak? it's never happened in the history of ever. i mean, it's just not -- this is not. >> trust me, talk to the intel committee. they do a pretty good job, sir. i love boating up congress like you do sometimes. but the intel committee does a pretty good job of keeping stuff classified. >> the intel committee is different.

people know with the intel committee someone can get killed in terms of national security. you are talking about people's lives. i'm talking about policy issues that might involve grand jury testimony, might involve other investigations, deep, you don't honestly believe, are you a smart guy, chuck, that if bill barr turned over a document unredacted to the united nations congress, spelling out what's going on in the other investigations, particularly the one in new york, of president trump, you don't believe it wouldn't leak? we both know that. >> you are a common sense guy. i don't understand why barr can't go in a room with the chief counsel on the democratic side and the chief counsel on the republican side of the judiciary committees. they can watch him redact in real time and see what it is. there are ways to do this in a way that would create trust but

verify. i would think it just doesn't seem like anybody is interested in it. everybody wants to play politics with it. >> everybody wants to spin it. this has been going on two years. look, there are two groups of people here. there are one group of people who are disappointed in the result of mr. mueller's investigation, and they're going to attack the process. they are wildly dishonest. you got another group of people that say, okay, mueller gave it his best call. now i want to see the process and see how he reached his conclusion. that's fair. that's fair. but you can't release grand jury information. you can't release information about other fbi investigations. and you can't release national intelligence information to congress. i wish you could, but they're going to leak it. and you know that and i know that. >> i know. that's why i do think cooler heads could prevail. you could create a small group.

again, that's too much common sense for our friends in congress. >> if we get a redacted report from bill barr where every third word is blacked out and there is no context and we can't them what it means, i'll be right here next to my democratic colleagues saying this is in bad faith. but that hasn't happened yet. i don't think it will happen. i do think bill barr is a straight shooter. but even if you disagree with me on that, i think we can all agree, fair minded people anyway, he's not a moron. he is an intelligent guy. he is not going to put a document out there to pull the wool over smart people's eyes. i don't believe it. if he does it, i will change my estimation of it. >> fair enough, senator john kennedy, republican from louisiana, thank you for coming on and sharing your views. >> thanks, chuck. coming up, bernie sander's medicare for plan has some support of his 2020 rivals.

is it a prescription in the democratic primary? it a prescr democratic primary ♪

every day, visionaries are creating the future. ♪ so, every day, we put our latest technology and unrivaled network to work.

♪ the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. ♪ because the future only happens with people who really know how to deliver it. because the future only happens with people you're having one more bite no! one more bite! ♪ kraft. for the win win.

[ music playing ] welcome back. tonight in 202056, a new poll of voters in california further cements one candidate's front runner status while suggesting that another may not be as top tier even in her home state. >> i am so proud to be a daughter of oakland, california.

>> calculatokamela harris has a idea in her home state as her former attorney general. is that going to be enough to help heroin the state? a new quinnipiac poll in california puts horizon 3rd place, 17% behind biden and bernie. >> this is the united states of america. their nothing we are uncapable of doing. >> biden leads democrats, choosing him and 66% say the complaints of biden of inappropriate physical contact are not a serious issue for them. in fairness, we've seen in the past, home state candidates get punished by voters until it's primary day and they get rewarded. california is poised to have much more of a say this time around since it's moved up its primary. can you finish fourth or lower in iowa? i think you still have to finish

top three. which harris' team is hoping can give her the big edge if she does compete we are back right after this. does compete we are back right after this limu's right. liberty mutual can save you money by customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. oh... yeah, i've been a customer for years. huh... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

i'with uncontrollederson who moderate-to-severe eczema, . or atopic dermatitis... ...you feel like you're itching all the time. and you never know how your skin will look. because deep within your skin... ...an overly sensitive immune system... ...could be the cause. so help heal your skin from within. with dupixent. dupixent is not a steroid,... ...and it continuously treats your eczema... ...even when you can't see it. at 16 weeks, nearly four times more patients taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin compared to those not taking it. ...and patients saw a significant reduction in itch. do not use if you are allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, a severe reaction. tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems, including eye pain or changes in vision. if you are taking asthma medicines, do not change or stop your asthma medicine without talking to your doctor.

help heal your skin from within. ask your eczema specialist about dupixent.

welcome back. it's the 2020 democratic field keeps growing, it's bernie sanders versus everyone else? that's certainly what the lanes look like to us right now. hoous he's out on big banks and paying for college and single payer healthcare. some people are acting like they're afraid of him or his supporters or going against what bernie stands for, look for medicare for all, something 2 traditionally far left of his opponents. some quickly jumped on board. they related when trump trump said he would make healthcare an issue in his 2020 election. now they have to decide to navigate the debate?

do they rally around the sanders' plan? fight obamacare? something they appear more in favor of, of course, all of this gets more confusing who the nominee is. someone who cares is for manchin of vest virginia. >> thank you for having many e. >> i'm all right. let me start with the idea of medicare for all. i have an idea where you are on this issue. but in a perfect world, is this something that if you thought it were feasible, you would try to make happen? >> chuck, in a perfect world, we should be sitting down looking after every option before us or every idea a person asks? how do we get affordable reliable care to every american? that's in a perfect world. chuck, we can't even pay for medicare for some that already have it? we will be insolvent by 2026. don't think we ought to fix that? we have affordable care act being attacked since it's been

introduced. 56 times they voted to repeal it. the sad scenario about this is mitch mcconnell's had two bills on his desk. bipartisan bills on his desk over a year first half, that would fix the problems we've identified if basically the high cost to the people that aren't qualifying for any of the subsidies or the exchange. >> let me ask you this. >> they won't fix what we got and want to talk about something hypothetical. doesn't make sense. >> the affordable care act has never been fully implemented. >> it's been tried. >> it hasn't been fully implemented. we don't have the expanded medicaid. we don't know if it's going to work or not work per se. where are -- at what point do you decide, to scrap a system before you fully implement it? >> i'm going to tell you one thing, i'm not voting to scrap it. is it the bill i would have voted for? i can't say that, chuck. i would have tried everything i can to change the ban damain da

give more on insurance. i wasn't here then. i got what i dpopt in front of me. i am not financial to sit back without a fight and allow people for the first time we've gotten insurance without trying to educate them how to use it. it's much more effective. much more cost wise effective. we're not doing anything to penn help people, we're going to take it away, are you abusing it. we have people for the first time in west virginia getting care for mental ahealthcare and addiction. i have pre-existing conditions, you want them to go back and saying the insurance company is in charge of your life? i got people in west virginia used to tell me all the time, i don't want to be a burden to my family, joe. what they're saying is we can't afford it. let the good lord do what he will with me. chuck, we're better tan that. >> let me ask you a politics question here. >> okay. >> the democratic presidential

primary, i feel the healthcare question does sort of allow us to really find out which side of this that they're on. we know where bernie is. you have the four democratic colleagues of yours that have endorsed it. kamela harris, corey booker, kirsten gilldebrand and elizabeth warren. there are democrats running basically saying let's do a medicare stop gap, maybe it's medicare x, a public option, whatever you fame it. it's obamacare with extra help. is that where you sit? is that the lane you'd rather be in? >> i'm such a -- i don't know, i don't know what lane to put me in. i don't know if i'm in the passing lane, the park lane or the reverse lane. because people are all over the board. they're going to do anything they can i guess right now moving with the windy, they're all my friend. i have the utmost respect for all of them. the bottom line is i got a

problem. the texas court ruled, the fifth circuit will rule. it might go to the supreme court. i'm concerned, is attorney general barr going to enforce the law if it's struck down by the courts that it is constitutional? and this is the law of the land. these are the things i'm fighting in front of me. i don't know why they can't -- we can talk about all this i said, listen, bring everybody in. let's have something we have substantial. i got every hospital in west virginia concern. scared to death. i got every rural clinic scared to death that they can't make it. you unravel this thing, there is no going back. you are not putting the genie back in this bottle. >> i guess the question is, is there a weird perverse hope for bipartisanship here which is as you have a liberal alternative and medicare for all sitting out there that bernie sander's wants to set up. you suddenly is have republicans singing the praises of obamacare which is ironic and we can discuss that at a later date,

suddenly there is a coalition of the willing to improve obamacare? >> i would think so. when john mccain, god rest his soul, when he voted no, you watched it happen. john mccain wasn't voting to save obamacare. he was voting because he knew we could fix it. we showed john all day long, john, here's the bills, we can't get mitch to move on. this is a bipartisan effort. john was everything about fixing problems, big policy problems, bipartisan. that's why john voted no now we are going through all of this again. maybe once we get through the court system. we might as well go clear to the supreme court. chuck, there is no doubt i think they're going to lose. they are going to lose, because this is constitutional. we did not wipe out. i voted against what they did. with that tax bill, they did not wipe out the intent or the law. they wiped out basically the funding mechanism. it can always come back? very quickly. do you have an idea of how you

will make your decision about who you endorse for president? >> you know, there are so many good people here. let me just say something. joe, you got a proven in joe bind. the reason i say you have a proven, here's a man that has relations all around the world. he understands the international policy. and joe's going to be formidable. you can see people were looking, past just the primary, going into the general election. who could be formidable? who could hit the ground running? who doesn't have to have on the job training? so joe will be formidable. we have to wait to see if he gets in. these are all people with great intentions. i applaud all of them for having the desire to get out and hit the trail around the country. god police mr. them all. >> joe's for joe. good blesser, a gubernatorial candidate perhaps. we're always watching. >> thank you, guy. >> coming up, why bernie sander's medicare for all plan may have a lot more in common

with president trump's wall than you might think. plus, i'm obsessed with something we actually truly have never seen before. actually true never seen before. safely. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? i felt i couldn't be at my best wifor my family. c, in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured and left those doubts behind. i faced reminders of my hep c every day. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. even hanging with friends i worried about my hep c. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. mavyret is the only 8-week cure for all common types of hep c.

before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions, and all medicines you take including herbal supplements. don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems. common side effects include headache and tiredness. with hep c behind me, i feel free... ...fearless... ...and there's no looking back, because i am cured. talk to your doctor about mavyret. welcome back. tonight i'm obsessed with a truly mysterious place. if it's so deep, nothing can escape it. an unending void, where time and space are non-existent. it's a bottomless expanse of utter and complete nothingness.

no, not that. i'm talking, of course, no, not that, either. about black holes. yes, history was made today as scientists reveal the first ever image of the cosmic phenomenon. ladies and gentlemen, i give you the black hole. here you go, perhaps at first blush, you may be under welled. consider this, what you are looking at a 55 million light years away. ha. no traffic. it's 7 billion times more massive than the sun. and it took a combined eight telescopes around the world to capture this image. so i -- so they say. it could be fake. so, yes, when you really think about it, this picture is actually mind blowingly impressive. as one researcher says, we have seen what we thought was unseeable. that's something, isn't it? an historic moment for science. it happened today. so, yes, this picture may be

blurry, but the progress is absolutely clear. s absolutely clear for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. 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. in a clinical study, over 96% of people taking xarelto® remained stroke-free. 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. ask your doctor about xarelto®.

to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com. . time now for the lid. so jason, medicare for all. and bernie sanders. it is interesting to me that when this campaign first started, we were trying to create all these lanes and it was going to be a six-lane highway. worse than atlanta. it feels like two lanes. it is basically, are you for this massive transformational change of our system, not just on health care, or there is the, look, you have to deal with the world you live in lane. which is congress is what it is. >> yes. and both those lanes have to do with the more important issue. can you beat trump. we don't care so much. the public doesn't care if you can get your medicare for all

done if they don't think you can beat the incumbent president, yes, yes, i don't agree with all this left wing stuff. i don't know how i feel about impeachment. i'm not open borders but i want people to come in safely. and you can tell it to your brother in indianapolis. i don't know if they'll be successful. bernie seems to be in the league right now but i think it is because he hasn't been seriously vetted yet. >> i wonder if there is a parallel on the right with bernie. he is saying, i'm the cure, liberalism in the purest form. isn't that what you want in different ways. and then the establishment is somewhere else. i feel like i saw this primary. it happened in '16 a little bit. and remember, we had that. and you have candidates supporting this proposal, for is

moderate voters, it seems pretty radical. >> a lot of people thought trump was too radical. >> but it is to energize the base. donald trump would say not only to generate, energize his base but also to appeal to working class americans. i don't know with this proposal if you do that. >> here's the tricky thing in primaries. voters don't want to hear what can't be done. bernie is telling them what can be done. they don't want to say, live in the real world. >> and klobuchar i think is the only democratic senator who is running who is not a co-sponsor. >> yes. what the four who are co-sponsors are doing is saying, we think this is really cool.

we're also interested in what we might do that would get part of the way which is i think the point all of you are making. that you have to be able to show some pragmatic value here, that maybe you're not as pie in the sky as some of the descriptions of medicare for all can look like. but they want to be on team medicare for all and team bernie. that clearly has some energy. >> they don't want to alienate the bernie crowd. >> but you can't be everything for everyone. >> in a primary, you have to try. >> yes, we can. >> you put together a committee the evaluate the possibility of it. that's what you have to do in a primary. that's why bernie sanders was successful. you have to get people excited. the reality is there's never been a time in america where people say i want less health care. even moderates, conservatives, even joe manchin. there are people in west virginia who are die hard

republican who's want more health care. and the democrats offering that. >> over 80% of americans like their private health care. that's a problem. i'm not saying he will energize the base. he could be the democratic candidate. >> highly unlikely. >> i am not in the highly unlikely -- i'm not there. >> he is so incredibly toxic with so many important constituencies. he is toxwick the establishment people who blame him for 2016. i don't think he can overcome that. i don't think joe biden would be this popular if bernie could fix it. >> i could literally say instead of saying bernie, say trump. oh, the chamber of commerce doesn't like him. we saw this. >> we saw him fail. and i don't know that he can beat trump. and i don't know that they can do that.

>> that is the biggest hurdle he has to face. thank you. we'll be right back but we'll continue this discussion right after this 'll continue this discussion right after this my time is thin, but so is my lawn. it's been worn down to ugly thin grass! now there's scotts thick'r lawn, the revolutionary 3-in-1 solution for weak lawns. with a soil improver to strengthen roots! seed to fill in gaps! and fertilizer to feed! the result... up to a 50% thicker lawn after just one application. ♪ ♪

now yard time is our time. this is a scotts yard. we really pride ourselvesglass, on making it easy to get your windshield fixed. with safelite, you can see exactly when we'll be there. saving you time for what you love most. >> kids: whoa! >> kids vo: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing it's best to make you everybody else... ♪ ♪ means to fight the hardest battle, which any human being can fight and never stop. does this sound dismal? it isn't. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. ♪ ♪ little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently.

with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you.

ready to treat differently with a pill? the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome. . in case you missed it, if it's wednesday, that means we have another new else of our podcast. the chuck todd cast. it is sound perspective. get it? on 2020 and all the big political stories of the day. it is also our way of taking you

behind the scenes at "meet the press." you just saw that animated conversation we had. nothing but more of that. i promise. so subscribe to the chuck todd cast. thank you for doing that and thank you for watching. the newest episode is up right now. that's all we have today. my man starts right now. hello! >> hello. thank you, chuck todd. we have big a show. bill barr facing the senate today. this was the first time he's done that since bob mueller finished his probe. the top democrat who runs the party's subpoena power takes a new shot here. speaking pelosi making it clear she doesn't trust barr saying he is not the attorney general of donald trump. he is the attorney general of the united states. i don't trust barr. i trust mueller. and basically comparing his work to a train wreck. >> a very, very dismaying and disappointing that the chief law enforcement officer of our