my thanks to rick, heather, katie, and jacob. most of all to you for watching. that does it for our hour. i am nicole. "mtp daily" with chuck todd starts now. ♪ if it's thursday, the pressure now is on pelosi as democrats must decide impeach or don't impeach. and mueller could not have been more clear about the ongoing threat to our democracy. russia is targeting us right now. and a new bipartisan senate report shows just how unprepared we are. plus, is joe biden ready for a fight? well, apparently he is now because he's taking his gloves off with the 2020 race coming to another head next week.
if it's thursday, it's "meet the press daily." and i'm chuck todd. we're waiting for mueller. now we're waiting for pelosi. does she launch an impeachment inquiry or does she take it off the table completely? because time, frankly, running short for her to make any sort of decision. the calendar is on the side of the not impeached side. we've got some new reporting just in moments ago about what happened inside that closed-door meeting among house democrats yesterday after mueller's testimony. this meeting included speaker pelosi, judiciary chairman nadler and intelligence committee schiff. pelosi made it clear that she's not going to stand in anyone's way if they want to call for an impeachment inquiry. multiple sources told nbc news that it's up to the caucus to make up their mind at impeachment. and she said more clearly than she ever has that each member can decide on impeachment based on their own conscience and constituents. now there were technical questions about impeachment. nadler told the caucus, reportedly, that an inquiry could be launched without a full
vote in the house. which is significant because nadler has reportedly been pressing pelosi to let him open an inquiry now. this morning house intelligence committee adam schiff acknowledged something pretty significant in the wake of mueller's testimony that the decision about impeachment is not just about the facts as pelosi has publicly stated. it is also about 2020. >> 2020 is unquestionably the only way he gets removed from office. so we can never lose sight of that. i have tried to put the political question out of my head. that is, does an impeachment help us in 2020 or does it hurt us politically because i don't think it's the right question to ask. but we do need to be realistic. and that is the only way he's leaving office, at least at this point, is by being voted out. >> so, what does pelosi do? and does she acknowledge the obvious that this is ultimately a political calculation? if you take her at her word that this is about the facts, not the politics, well, yesterday
mueller affirmed pretty much every fact of the case that the democrats have been making that the president welcomed the attack of russia to the democracy and that he tried to obstruct the investigation. let me go now to congressman sean patrick maloney. he is one of the folks that questioned the former special counsel yesterday. and he's somebody that is not yet ready to say, you know what, time for an impeachment inquiry, congressman. good to see you. and i want to get, because you were one of the few democrats that seemed to also want to do some accountability with mr. mueller. but let me start with this impeachment question. where are you? >> yeah. where i am is i want the president removed from office. so the question is what's going to work. and i don't think that's an academic question. so, right now because the republican party is morally bankrupt on this subject, that's the point, you know, adam schiff is making. impeachment is likely to be fruitful or productive in terms
of removing the president from office. by the way, i don't think that's making it a political question. i think it's making an efficacy question. you want him held accountable. how do you do it? the mueller report is an important step in doing that and getting it out publicly is critical because we need to know what happened and the american public needs to know who they've got in the oval office. >> i guess the question is this. if you don't do it, what are the unintended consequences? for instance, if you choose not to impeach him and he wins re-election, regret? >> well, can we make one thing clear that the house, you know, impeaching the president has nothing to do ultimately with removing him. there's going to have to be a trial in the senate. >> i understand that. but isn't that the point? >> in other words -- >> i guess the reason i say it here is to me what was missing yesterday, the most dynamic part of the mueller report is when they start putting the timelines together. you know, as this happened at trump tower, this was happening
with the russian hackers. we didn't see any of that yesterday. an impeachment inquiry we would. >> well, if your point is, is that we're not doing everything we can to get out those facts to the american public, i guess i disagree. if your point is that that would be more effective in an impeachment inquiry, which, by the way, equally likely to become a partisan circus more akin to the brett kavanaugh hearings than a fact-finding exercise, i think that's worth examining as well. bottom line is that we do have an election in a year. the american public's going to get to decide whether we hold this president accountable in the most effective way possible, which is democratically removing him. and i do think it's relevant to ask what is likely to work. now, by the way, i don't want to mince words. if you ask me whether the president deserves impeachment, yeah, he does. what he did was outrageous, unpatriotic, unethical, fill in the blank. i think part of having mueller up here is to lay that out. the problem with impeachment is if everybody goes to the red team, blue academy, defcon one
and it's unlikely to be productive in terms of getting the facts out and persuading americans about why we need to take the country in a different direction. >> one of the specific areas you questioned robert mueller on. and it was on the issue of interviewing the president. let me play the clip first. >> we were almost towards the end of our investigation, and we'd had little success in pushing to get the interview of the president. we decided that we did not want to exercise the subpoena powers because the necessity of expediting the end of the investigation. >> what did you think of the president's written responses, mr. mueller? >> certainly not as useful as the interview would be. >> in fact, you pointed out, and by my account there were more than 30 times when the president said he didn't recall, he didn't remember, no independent recollection, no current recollection. i take it by your answer that it
wasn't as helpful. that's why you used words like incomplete, imprecise, inadequate, insufficient. is that a fair summary of what you thought of those written answers? >> that is a fair summary. and i presume that comes from the report. >> and yet, sir, and i ask this respectfully. by the way, the president didn't ever claim the fifth amendment, did he? >> i am not going to talk to that. >> all right. i want to know what were you going to ask respectively. it sounds like you think mueller -- that you were second-guessing mueller's decision not to subpoena the president. >> you better believe i am. i think it was a mistake, but i think it's important what he said. what he said was that they were balancing. in fact, he did this with his hands. and what he was trying to convey is that they were building what he called in the report significant and substantial evidence of the president's intent to obstruct justice. he was balancing what they already had with the delay required to possibly get more through an in-person interview. i still wish he had put the president in a chair, sworn him
in, and made him answer some tough questions. i think we will always wish that had happened. but the director's point is worth listening to. he said, page 13, volume ii, and look at appendix c to the whole report. he said very clearly, they believe there was sufficient and substantial evidence of the president's intent. and so i think what he's trying to say is we already had it. >> you know, it's interesting, though, what mueller is saying about subpoenaing the president in time is sort of the same argument being made about impeachment versus no impeachment versus the 2020 election. fair? >> you know, i think it's a little different. i think what he's saying is that -- well, look, he could be forgiven for thinking that when he sent up the report to the attorney general that the guy would take it seriously and not assemble and delay, and that the congress might actually take it seriously, too, in both parties which would be great. because i think bob mueller comes from a different era when we used to take this stuff more
seriously despite our partisan differences. i have to tell you, so, i am regretful that he didn't subpoena the president. but i am very respectful of that person came up and testified yesterday. i want my kids to grow up to be like bob mueller, and i hope we're -- i still hope we're generating guys like bob mueller who would take more seriously despite their political affiliations the kinds of findings he has in that report. >> congressman sean patrick maloney, democrat from new york, thanks for coming on and sharing your view. i really appreciate it. >> thank you. let me bring in daniel, also host of a new podcast called "what the hell is going on?" >> isn't that the question on everybody's mind? [ laughter ] >> msnbc contributor eugene robins always knows what the hell is going on. [ laughter ] >> i was going to ask you that. >> dan balz, you were probably
as declarative as anybody in our business with your piece today if you're interested in removing donald trump, there is one evident only, and it is the 2020 election which seems to be where mr. maloney is representing that side this democratic party debate. >> that seems to be where chairman schiff was this morning when he talked about it. the only practical way that he's going to be removed from office is the election. this is not something that is reality because of what happened yesterday. this has been reactility for so time. >> but something would've happened more dramatically yesterday for that to change. like mueller himself would've had to say, yes, i intended for you to start an impeachment inquiry. >> it would've taken something much more diagram attic and maybe even more dramatic than that. i don't know what. but the reality is that still leaves the house and particularly speaker pelosi with a very tough decision because there are constitutional issues involving, you know, the relationship between the executive branch and the legislative branch what a
president can do or has done. and some of these are outstanding and important issues. so the question then is, is if they decide that there are reasons that an impeachment inquiry should begin, that's done, in part, to protect those constitutional prerogatives. at the same time they have to make a decision about does that move democrats closer or farther away from being able to win the 2020 election? you know, it's interesting, eugene. it does seem as if there is this tiny little way that you might see, okay, you can open your impeachment inquiry, chairman nadler, because you need the subpoena power, we need the legal power to compel, but that's all you're going to do. do you think we go down that road? >> well, i think that's possible. i think it may be -- i don't know. i was going to say slightly less possible today than it was -- slightly less. not a whole lot less because as dan pointed out, there are
constitutional reasons. there are lots of reasons to impeach donald trump. but if there was going to be a reason anyway to remove him from office through impeachment, mueller was going to have to produce an actual corpse yesterday. it was going to have to be something, you know, totally dramatic, which was possible. but it did not happen. and therefore there is no way on earth republicans in the senate are going to vote to remove him. so it will be necessarily a symbolic act but it will not be an act that leads to his removal. >> danny, every time trump was spiking the football last night, i think thinking that's one for democrat that's going to come out for impeachment. there's this weird thing, if he overgloats, it would backfire. >> he doesn't want to be impeached. i think donald trump understands as we've said so many times in his sort of feral way that the democrats in the house are at a
crossroads. they've got to make a decision here. and the decision for them is the next year and a half going to be about donald trump, which he likes, or is it going to be about them actually creating some democratic success stories for the election in 020? if it's going to be about donald trump, he wins. >> how is 2020 not going to be about donald trump? >> i don't mean it. just be realistic. >> at the end of the day, okay, maybe 2020 i defer to the political experts here is going to be a referendum on donald trump alone. but if that's the case he has a good shot of winning. i'll tell you something else that i heard yesterday that i couldn't believe from some republicans. and that was they think they have a shot at winning back the house in 2020 for the first time after that mueller thing. >> well, that's interesting. that is some argued, dan that, that is really what's pelosi's thinking about. but it's like, wait a minute, impeachment could go sideways and could cost her the majority. >> there's nobody in the democratic party who thinks more
about control of the house than nancy pelosi. i mean, that is where her focus is. it's one reason that the democrats control the house today was her focus in 2018, and it will go forward into 2020. >> well, here's some good news. i want to bring in basically the other side of this debate. we heard from one democrat. we're going to hear from one david sicillini of rhode island. he was a member of the judiciary committee and he's also a member of house leadership. so let me start with this. speaker pelosi, is she closer to letting you guys open this inquiry or farther away? >> well, i'll let speaker pelosi speak for herself. but i think, look, yesterday was an important day. the american people heard from the special counsel that the president's claim that his investigation was a witch hunt. he said no witch hunt, no hoax, the president was not exonerated. and then he walked the american
people through this report in five which episodes of obstruction of justice were presented. i think it was an important hearing. we are going to continue to hear from witnesses. obviously don mcgahn, and cory lewandowski, there's a lot more work to do. i think people are thinking about this in a very serious way. they're reviewing evidence. they're talking to their constituents. they are trying to make judgments about what they think is right for the country. i think each day it feels like there are more people who think the time has come to begin a formal process to consider whether or not the president should be removed from office in an impeachment inquiry. i think this speaker will continue to reflect the broad consensus in the caucus. we're not there yet i think in terms of a majority of our members. but i think more and more people see based on the president's conduct that's presented in the mueller report and his subsequent conduct of attempting to obstruct, prevent witnesses from coming forward, preventing documents from being produced, his ongoing effort to cover up. >> let me ask you this. there's sort of a growing chorus
of folks who are frustrated by what they think is a slow-acting house democratic majority when it comes to some of these accountability issues. for instance, why did we wait till july 24th to hear from robert mueller? why didn't we hear from him by may 24th? and a lot of this is because you're getting some stonewall from the administration. i get that. but in hindsight, do you not look at it and think the democrats need to look more aggressive here? have you let this drag out too long? >> no. i don't think actually that's the reason, chuck. i think the thing that we're trying to do as democrats is we're trying to stay focused on two things. moving forward on the agenda that we developed for the people of this country to drive down health care costs, to drive down the cost of prescription drugs, to raise family incomes, rebuild the infrastructure of america and take on the corruption in washington bypassing the biggest anti-corruption bill in decades. we've passed over 200 pieces of
legislation, 50 major bills all responding to the urgent priorities of the american people. while we're doing all of that, all of this work on these important issues, we're also working hard to hold this president accountable. that's happening in six committees. there's a lot of litigation ongoing. so there's a lot of stuff happening. we have a responsibility to do both things. but i think asome of this stuff when you have a president who says i'm going to prevent you in every way from hearing from witnesses and collecting evidence, we're gone consider have to litigate a lot of this. i think that's part of the frustration but we need for keep i think moving forward to make sure everyone understands no one in this country is above the law including the president of the united states. >> one final question because i know i got to let you go vote. that is this. the mueller report came in two parts. and very specifically part one was about the crimes and part two was about the obstruction. yesterday you presented the report backwards as far as mueller was concerned. you started with obstruction, and then we got the crime in the afternoon. any second thoughts that maybe
considering on how more animated that mueller was on russia. >> i'll remind you obstruction was a crime. so i think the judiciary committee began because we're the committee that has jurisdiction over impeachment so i think it made sense for mr. mueller first to come to the judiciary committee. he spoke about the president's conduct. so i'm not sure the order mattered. i think we had an opportunity to hear from the special counsel and him walk through all the contents of the report. so i'm not sure it made a difference. >> fair enough. congressman, democrat from rhode island, one of the questions yesterday in the judiciary committee, thank you for coming on and sharing your view. go vote. we'll be back after a quick break with more on this question of impeachment with the roundtable. that's coming up. so what now? and later a brand-new bipartisan senate intel report. bipartisan. it's a word that's going extinct. it's an extensive russian
election interference campaign in 2016. a bipartisan group of senators has come up with this and they have warnings for 2020. we'll be right back. t dad, you't allstate. with accident forgiveness they guarantee your rates won't go up just because of an accident. smart kid. indeed. are you in good hands? who used expedia to book the vacation rental which led to the discovery that sometimes a little down time can lift you right up. expedia. everything you need to go. why fingerstick when you can scan? with the freestyle libre 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader, iphone or android and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks.
learn more at freestylelibre.us you can do it without fingersticks. [ referee whistle sounds ] ♪ sport dr[ cheering ]s when you need the fuel to be your nephew's number one fan. holiday inn express. we're there. so you can be too. this is mia's pulse. with pressure rising, and racing. this is also mia's pulse. that her doctor keeps in check, so she can find balance. this is mia's pulse, and now it's more stable than ever. this is what medicare from blue cross blue shield does for mia. and with over 80 years of healthcare expertise,
well, we got a bit of breaking news just moments ago. the house passed that bipartisan budget deal which raises federal spending level, suspends the debt for two years. the day after speaker pelosi painted the president as essentially an existential threat to american democracy, her caucus ends up passing the vote to pass the trump act. yesterday the house democrats have essentially this guy's got to get out. he's unfit for office. they have just helped him get rid of two major potential
political headaches for him so he can run for re-election. >> well, i mean -- >> it's for them, too. >> i was going to say, a, he is president. they've got to cut a deal with somebody. and he's he's gone back and forth and blown things up. >> and nothing's a given yet but his favorite advisers on that channel are also obsessed with mueller. they might not realize that a budget deal passed. >> it looks like this one will go through without a hiccup. >> the distraction of mueller will distract his friends. >> but this was good for the democrats and it was good for him. it just clears things out. and sometimes you have to do things that have to get done. >> and we said pelosi got 219 votes. so she got democrats alone were able to pass -- >> that's what our numbers were saying. we should check that again. >> that's a heck of a whip job to get that many democrats. the majority of the house. >> it truly would be unbelievable in the same week
that mueller testified to get a budget bill that takes -- and you're right, it helps the dems too, but a budget bill that really does help the president punts this past the 2020 election. and if it passes in the senate on democratic votes as well, that will truly be something. >> but nobody cares about deficits. >> again, any republican official who's voted, i'm sorry, the deficit hawk, it's an extinct animal. >> but let's be fair. when they passed the tax bill, it was the democrats who were suddenly talking about it. >> i always say the only time deficit hawks hatch here in washington is when that party's in the minority. when they're not in the white house, oh, yes, worry about the deficit. oh, our party's in the white house, never mind, blank checks. >> since reagan, republicans increased the deficit. >> it is by the way every democratic president the deficit has gone down.
>> and republicans remember their principles when democrats are in the white house. and forget them the rest of the time. >> all right. so, would you take that stuff off the table, okay, you know, it's interesting to me. i heard cicillini say this to me. how do you run on something else other than holding trump accountable right now? you know, what can they do in the fall? what can congressional democrats do -- >> that's a point. the alternative universe is they don't cut a deal on budget and debt ceiling. so we have a series of these brinks manship fights and potential shutdowns, and he could gamble that that is a bad thing for the president. >> they usually are. >> they usually are. but i wonder if i were nancy pelosi, is that what i would
want to be doing, especially if i see spending priorities that i can get in this deal if i see, you know, there's a lot of money for hud in this budget, for example. that's going to make a difference to a lot of people on the ground. and so i think a lot of democratic members would rather actually do that, actually, you know, get these government resources to help people than play the political game. >> let me go back to mueller and the other part of yesterday that also mueller seems to danny really if he wanted to send one message, it was this russian interference is serious. like, this was serious. we have this bipartisan report out today from burr and warner. they've got to give those two men credit, whatever you think. they kept that thing together. it may not have an impact now because it's taken so long, but they kept that investigation together. why isn't there more rank and file public concern with what
russia did? >> i agree with you that senator burr has been really very serious and that warner -- >> they have. >> i don't even want to limit this to russia. we cannot downplay the threat to our electoral systems to our democratic processes from russia, from china, from iran, from north korea. >> wait, look at the president's actions with turkey, with rush dwrar a. and sometimes you're like why is he trying to make it easier for russia to screw with america's foreign policy like this turkey decision, for instance. >> the turkey decision is a little perplexing if i may say so. i do think that his administration has been pretty tough. the intel community i know -- >> the fish rots from the head. when the fish is doing well, the head still gets some credit. >> finish your thought. i'm going to have to speak in a
break. >> at the end of the day i think the intelligence community is very live, but it's going to take a bipartisan consensus. >> i'm going to pause here. stick around. up ahead. there's less than one week until the next democratic debate. and joe biden says he's not going to be as polite as last time. that's next. hi. maria ramirez! mom! maria! maria ramirez... mcdonald's is committing 150 million dollars in tuition assistance, education, and career advising programs... prof: maria ramirez mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! to help more employees achieve their dreams. hi, i'm joan lunden. when my mother began forgetting things, we didn't know where to turn for more information. that's why i recommend a free service called a place for mom. we have local senior living advisors who can answer your questions about dementia or memory care
the way you triumph over adversity. and live your lives. that's why we redesigned humira. we wanted to make the experience better for you. now there's less pain immediately following injection. we've reduced the size of the needle and removed the citrate buffers. and it has the same effectiveness you know and trust. humira citrate-free is here. a little change can make a big difference. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure.
tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. ask your doctor about humira citrate-free. here's to you. welcome back tonight. in 2020 vision joe biden gets ready to take the gloves off.
>> i made the pledge you will not hear me speak ill of another democrat. >> that's what biden was saying when he kicked off his campaign. but now he seems ready to fight. biden says he's not going to be as polite as he was last time. kamala harris saw her stock rise after taking on biden last time. cory booker is already getting his punches on, explicitly attacking biden's new criminal justice reform plan. >> for a guy who helped to be an architect of mass incarceration, this is an adequate solution to what is a raging crisis in our country. >> and implicitly attacking biden's civil rights record. >> it is not enough to show up in our communities today with a promise of a better tomorrow. what were you doing five, ten, feen or 20 years ago to fight for racial justice? don't just tell us you're going to a champion for our communities when you become president if you haven't been a
champion already. >> when reporters asked him today what he meant about not being as polite, biden just simply said we'll see. but a biden source said to me they're ready for all of the incoming. they know castro's coming. they know gillibrand's coming at him. they know that harris is coming at him and booker. they feel like they're all telegraphing him. as one source said to me, everybody's looking for their t-shirt moment, but they think it's bigger than this. but biden clearly is ready to be the center of attention. we're going to talk about that on the other side. we'll be right back. this was me before liberty mutucustomized
my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. and this is me now! any physical changes to this man's appearance are purely coincidental. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer.
some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. remission can start with stelara®.
welcome back with the mueller testimony in the rear view mirror, it's full speed ahead again in 2020. you don't believe it? just ask president trump. he himself mentioned 2020 multiple times in his first public comment after yesterday's hearing. and he says the investigation will end up hurting democrats at the ballot box. >> democrats thought they could win an election like this, i think they hurt themselves very
badly for 2020. i think they're going to lose the 2020 election very big including congressional seats because of the path that they chose. i will tell you something. i think it's going to have a huge negative impact on 2020 for the democrats. >> dan balz, eugene robinson. i go back, the president doesn't want the impeachment process. that is why i think he sort of -- we know that on that front. but it will -- i am curious to see if the house democrats sort of pull back on this, does one of the presidential candidates take it up besides tom steier? >> i understand that there are people who for political reasons say it's not where we want to be. but my view, some things are above politics. [ applause ] >> there's a few people that couch that as her somehow taking
a shot at pelosi, per se, or whatever. but -- >> she was one of the first candidates. is it worth running on or not? >> look, most democrats, the most democratic primary voters want impeachment. so, sure. i mean, i expect that you'll hear more from the candidates. >> could they be loud enough that it almost forces pelosi's hand? >> i don't think that's how pelosi's hand would be forced. i think if she saw a huge ground swell of popular support for impeachment, giant demonstrations or something like that, i think that would have more impact than 2020 contenders saying impeachment. >> you know, danny, i do think sometimes some candidates just speak with how they are reacting. the fact is if more democrats were claiming impeachment in iowa and new hampshire, why do i have a feeling that biden, harris, you'd see them talking impeachment more. >> right.
because they are not where we are. the voters in these states don't follow this with the same obsessive attention. >> even if they hate trump. >> even if they hate trump, they've actually got real lives. i don't know what that says about us, but that is why i think that they're not going to get that kind of traction. there's another problem for them as well. that is that nancy pelosi is looking for a republican, not just an a.m.age but a republican who is going to start waivering. and we have seen whether good for the party or not, and we can certainly talk about that, a solid behind donald trump. >> and it seems that as, you know, i was thinking here, i think pelosi's already by her nonactions, essentially taken impeachment off the table, you could argue, unless they open it before the recess because you have a six-week recess coming. you are going to have the next round of democratic debates. there will probably be another round of democratic debates before they come back and convene and have impeachment. it seems like the 2020 race will
become the new impeachment sort of as you wrote. >> well, you could look at what somebody like senator warren is doing, and she has taken that stand consistently as a way to litigate the issues around impeachment without actually having an impeachment. i mean, in other words, a presidential candidate could make that as part of their case as to why they should be the person to be the nominee in order to appeal to people. >> all right. let me pivot to joe biden and his preparation. he clearly, their campaign has embraced the idea. and i think they're not wrong to think this. if the candidates were copycaters in the first two debates, you could see it when they all saw how the moderate wag going to work in night one that it was going to be a light touch on those that interrupted by night two, they all became interrupters. so they learn from each other. they all -- they have learned, oh, kamala harris got a bump for attacking biden. so they'll all start attacking biden. this is in some ways it's a good a time as any for him to have a
do-or-die moment. >> it certainly is if he can survive it. >> he did not have a good debate and people around biden know that and recognize that he's got to do substantially better on the second time around. >> i find it interesting they're along to raise stakes a little bit. >> i think they -- >> i agree. they know it's the story so they might as well embrace it, don't fight it. >> there is a risk for anybody who does go after biden because it doesn't necessarily accrue to that person in a multi-candidate race. so the people who go after biden have also got to make some calculations about how they do it and how effective they might be and whether there's lasting value in that. >> in fact, to me the one person that has the biggest decision to make about going after biden is harris. she already did it once, you want to do it again and then suddenly become that. you don't want that. >> exactly. she doesn't want to look like a bully. on the other hand, she got a big bump that sort of regressed to
the mean a little bit. and -- >> but she certainly established herself in the top tier. >> she established herself in the top tier. i think she wants to continue to establish her prosecutorial chops because i think part of that big bump was not just going after biden and weakening him, but it was sort of demonstrating people could picture her against donald trump and in some sort of confrontation. >> i think that's really screwed. the other problem for joe biden is that he's not -- he doesn't like to prepare, he doesn't like to do the hard work that's required to be fast on your feet in the way that's necessary. and he's not as sharp as he thinks he is. and that really does put you in a position with the cory bookers and the buttigiegs and the harriss. >> they're quick. they're smart. >> they're not grandpa-like. >> well, more than one person in
the political world today noted the mueller performance and thought, boy, that puts a little more pressure on biden. >> i heard that from a couple of people yesterday. maybe that's the case. maybe that's just total inside. >> but i take the point, the larger point. >> well, and i think that's one of the reasons why he's under pressure in the next debate. it isn't strictly because of that exchange with senator harris. it's that overall he did not look like he had the vigor, the energy, the command that people were looking for that they want to see in a nominee. overall, he, you know, he just has to present himself in a different way. >> yet he's still ahead. >> you know, some people were fine with what they saw. >> he seems to have lost about five to seven points, but that's about it. >> that's about it. >> people are -- you know, look, one bad debate performance as we know from history is something that you can recover from, is something that barack obama
recovered from in 2012. >> and reagan in '84. >> but two in a row, that's a bad thing. >> but there's another reason biden has so much to gain here. and by the way, if they all come at him, he could end up being in a more powerful position very quickly. because let me put up this ohio poll, guys just give me the head to head. i don't need the primary poll. ohio, a lot of people like me don't think it's really in the battleground anymore. there's only one democrat who led in ohio, and that's biden. >> i still tend to be where you are on ohio is a very tough state. >> that democratic number that everybody else got, 45, i wonder is that the new ceiling or certainly gets close to that ceiling for where democrats are in ohio. but, anyway, danny, thank you, eugene, dan, much appreciated. quick programming note.
house judiciary chairman jerry nadler will be on "hardball" with chris matthews tonight. will he open this inquiry without pelosi's blessing? up ahead, the growing threat of russia growing in the 2020 election. plus, why i'm obsessed with a symbol that is not what it seems to be. for effective, non-addictive relief. salonpas lidocaine. patch, roll-on or cream. hisamitsu. 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. e-commerce deliveries to homes if your adventure... keeps turning into unexpected bathroom trips. you may have overactive bladder, or oab.
not again! we're seeing a doctor when we get home. myrbetriq treats oab symptoms of urgency, frequency, and leakage. it's the first and only oab treatment in its class. myrbetriq may increase blood pressure. tell your doctor right away if you have trouble emptying your bladder or have a weak urine stream. myrbetriq may cause serious allergic reactions, like swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, or trouble breathing. if experienced, stop taking and tell your doctor right away. myrbetriq may interact with other medicines. tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. common side effects include increased blood pressure, common cold or flu symptoms, sinus irritation, dry mouth, urinary tract infection, bladder inflammation, back or joint pain, constipation, dizziness, and headache. looking for a destination that isn't always the bathroom? ask your doctor if myrbetriq is right for you. and visit myrbetriq.com.
if you are under attack, i recommend calling reputation defender. vo: there's more negativity online than ever. reputation defender ensures that when people check you out, they'll find more of the truth, not trash. if you have search results that are wrong or unfair, visit reputationdefender.com or call 1-877-866-8555. and here we have another burst pipe in denmark. if you look close... jamie, are there any interesting photos from your trip? ouch, okay. huh, boring, boring, you don't need to see that. oh, here we go. can you believe my client steig had never heard of a home and auto bundle or that renters could bundle? wait, you're a lawyer? only licensed in stockholm. what is happening? jamie: anyway, game show, kumite, cinderella story. you know karate? no, alan, i practice muay thai, completely different skillset. welcome back. tonight i'm
obsessed with what's going on in the background. you know, sometimes facial hair and stuff like that because sometimes strange things are hiding in plain sight like when people grow beards. consider president trump's speech this week at a summit of young conservatives. >> well, let's see, pinocchio, was alluding shaken, turning spin. it was like this. here and there and there. this is what we're dealing with. circle, this is not a same person. nuts. this is not what we want representing us, i don't think. >> it was an interesting speech, no doubt. but something else was interesting as well. did you notice the seal behind him? eagle-eyed viewers will notice that is not the presidential seal. here is the reel seal on the left. the eagle has one head and is carrying arrows in its left tailon. the seal on the right is carrying golf clubs. also the banner above the eagle
is supposed in be in latin and say e pluribus unum. the two-headed bird sure looks a lot like the russian code of arms. a lot like the russian coat of amps. just saying. the organization behind the event calls it an audio visual mix-up and there's says there was zero malicious intent. it was carrying golf clubs, one person was fired though. i'm left with two lingering questions, what image does it project about this white house if the advance team can get spoofed like that? but more importantly, what does it mean that hardly anybody noticed? hardly anybody noticed? ♪ more, more, more ♪ how do you like it, ♪ how do you like it ♪ ♪ more, more, more ♪ how do you like it, how do you like it ♪ all you can eat is back. how do you like that? applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.
[ referee whistle sounds ] ♪ sport dr[ cheering ]s when you need the fuel to be your nephew's number one fan. holiday inn express. we're there. so you can be too. with advil liqui-gels, what stiff joints? what bad back? advil is... relief that's fast. strength that lasts. you'll ask... what pain? with advil liqui-gels. ♪work so hard give it everything you got♪
♪strength of a lioness tough as a knot♪ ♪rocking the stage and we're never gonna stop♪ ♪all strength, no sweat... just in case you forgot♪ ♪all strength, no sweat... ♪no no no sweat... most people think a button is just a button. ♪ that a speaker is just a speaker. ♪ or - that the journey can't be the destination. most people haven't driven a lincoln. discover the lincoln approach to craftsmanship at the lincoln summer invitation. right now, get 0% apr on all 2019 lincoln vehicles plus no payments for up to 90 days. only at your lincoln dealer. here, hello! starts for uwith -hi!mple... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not?
attempt by the russians to get involved in our election or did you find evidence to suggest they'll try to do this again. >> it wasn't a single attempt. they're doing it as we sit here and they expect to do it during the next campaign. >> welcome back. the day after mueller's testimony, a bipartisan report from the senate intelligence committee confirms his testimony on russian interference. the report describes extensive interference in the 2016 election, concerns about the 2020 election and just how fragile our electoral infrastructure is. mike mcfaul joins me now.
mike, when we booked you this morning, we only were going to talk about what mueller said and in between we get the first of what is going to be a series of bipartisan reports from the senate intel committee. you know, like all of these things, we knew it was extensive, but oh, my, it was more extensive. your initial reaction. >> well, chuck, i've been at work all day and haven't read the report. i knew it was coming. i testified before that committee. we knew it was extensive. there's now widespread agreement about what the russians did. the trouble is there's not widespread agreement what should be done. and remember, mueller's report was not a 911 like bipartisan commission where it spelled out bheeth had happened and what should be done and i find it rather shocking where july 2019, we're two and a half years out, just a few months away from the election and we still are arguing about the prescriptions and no legislation has passed
yet that enhances the security of american voters come next year. >> you know, and i'm going to be as crass as i can politically here which will make my friends on social media happy. it's this. the irony here is politically the easiest thing for president trump to do would be to champion and sign these electoral security bills. is the easiest thing is to acknowledge that this is a threat. what is it -- i'm saying it slightly rhetorically here. but what does that tell you he doesn't want even want to do the easy politics to make it look like he cares about this? he truly doesn't care about this. >> it's just shocking. i don't know another word to put it. i think somehow, i'm just psychoanalyzing here now, but i think somehow he thinks it might play to his favor and what i think the president is forgetting is. >> favor meaning what. >> russians are not the only
actor. >> russia, if you're listening? >> he said it himself. right? i'm, i don't need to put words into his mouth. he said if they got something interesting, he would take a look. what he's not remembering, two things. one, putin doesn't care about trump. putin wants to weaken us. he thought it was instrumental to his favor to support trump to weaken us, and i think putin has achieved that objective. number two, even bigger, putin is not the only one that can do this to you. do you think the iranians if they break into our systems on election day are going to falsify the vote in support of president trump? do you think the chinese are? do you think the silicon hackers that don't like the president are going to play the playbook on behalf of trump? >> you realize that was the final season of "veep." . the speier premise. it's which candidate is going to suck up to the chinese more.
it was supposed to be a comedy. and it didn't feel like a comedy. >> i did not know that fact, chuck. thanks for telling me that. i do worry about it a lot. i worry especially, you know, the disinformation piece, you know, that can be handled. companies out here are trying to work with it. i support the legislation that would provide more information about that. i don't see it going forward. the thing i really worry about is something on election day, even some fragment, 100, 1,000 voters in which is that show up, their names aren't on the list and you and i and everybody focuses on that. in a close election, that could be become scandalous. that could become threatening to our democracy, especially if president trump is not winning. then he can say well, hey, i told you it was going to be falsified. now it has. then we're really in a constitutional crisis. this is serious stuff. >> because i have your national security brain on the show, it was a topic i quickly brought up
earlier in the show and it has to do with the president basically not wanting to pub nish turkey for working with the russians. and i sit here and it comes in the same week as we have the mueller report. why the shouldn't we tie those two things together? >> you know, the high mow poe thesis is still there. you heard mueller say yesterday he did not investigate financial fipz we've been speculating about that for a long time as to why. he said it was not in his purview. i do think it is one of the oddities. >> is there another explanation, let me ask you this. is there another explanation for why the president would not want to punish turkey here while everybody else does in this country? and i'm quick here. i apologize. >> yes, there is. that is because president trump has not only embraced putin but other dictators around the world. there's a pattern beyond russia. we still don't know the full details financial relationships
between the trump organization and russians. >> mike mcfaul, i'm going to leave it there. as always, thank you. >> thanks for having me. >> stanford still looking good behind you. we'll be back tomorrow with more "meet the press" daily. it's "the beat" with ari meller that begins right this second. >> thank you very much. tonight we're one day out from the mueller hearings and in the middle of several big stories right now. we have a special report on some of the moments from the mule ter hearing you may not have seen later this hour. also a top democrat now alling that the trump administration's immigration policy has reached the point of kidnapping, shocking video emerging. washington is, of course, still consumed with this mueller fallout. tonight there's new reporting on an effort by the trump administration to do something while everyone may be distracted, cutting food assistance for up to 3 million low income people. for a lot of folks this is a life and death story. we begin with this fallout from