former senator doug jones and melissa murray, appreciate you. that is going to do it for me. i am charles coleman junior, you've been watching velshi, on msnbc. ali will be back next weekend, and make sure you catch him on velshi every weekend from 10 am to 12 noon. now i don't know whether you've got a sure on his 50s or kansas city, or san francisco, or whatever you do. enjoy the rest of your day. stay where you are, inside with jen psaki begins right now. >> reporter: okay, if you felt this week was a whole year, i'm here to tell you you are not alone, on thursday, the supreme court heard oral arguments on donald trump's ballot eligibility under the 14th amendment. and the ball is going to be back on your court tomorrow as trump prepares an appeal on

presidential unity, safe to say it got about 1 million questions, and we're going to get through as many as we possibly can. plus, congressman adam schiff is here, and i can't wait to hear what he has to say about one of the most dangerous things we've never heard trump say. basically inviting a russian attack on our native allies. also today, special counsel robert hur decided not to charge joe biden, instead took it upon himself to editorialize about his age and memory. let's just say i've got a few things to get off my chest about that one. and later, we'll break down to hurt tulsans pepperoni with putin, and what he used to say about the russian dictator. we dug into tucker's time here at nbc when he was seen in a much different tune. >> well, it was a heck of a newsweek, again. i have hundreds of pages, of

court rulings and transcripts and special counsel reports. but one of the most significant things that happened this week seemed t to already moved throu the news cycle, in favor of analysts, and i mean ever -- simply too old to be president. so, we're going to find -- weren't our focus. on thursday, for a little over two hours, the supreme court heard oral arguments on whether not orformer president donald trump can be kicked off the colorado ballot. because, of course, as his role as part of the , insurrection o january 6th. no matter what happens from here and how they rule, that's a owthing that actually happene and it's historic in and of itself. and tomorrow, after a stinging defeat from the appeals court, the m trump is expected to ask the supreme court to hear his case about presidential immunity. now remember, his lawyers claim is . that he could've s.e.a.l. team six and assassinate his political ixrival -- immune fro

prosecution. that's e hearing on that one. and yes, there was also the special yecounsel report on president biden from renowned neurologist and -- we will get to that to, i promise. because i have lots of thoughts to share, i promise you. and truth be told, we had planned to start the show today by talking about the supreme court, and all of the legal developments here this week, because there were a lot and they're important. and we are still going to discuss all of it today at length. but we decided late last night that it's important to start today with something alarming donald trump said at a rally in south carolina, because it's four too easy to ignore it. all of the crazy things he says, often within the same speeches. trump was telling us what he's going to do, and it's important to listen. and also talk about what the impact would actually be of what he is telling us. now, before we play it, there's a little background. trump has of course been a big critic and skeptic of nato, an alliance that's held the world order together for three quarters of a century, so it's

been pretty vital. which came to the fence of the united states shortly h after 9/11. this campaign even contains this big but very ominous sentence. we have to finish the process we began undermined ministration of fundamentally reevaluating nato's purse -- know why does that matter. well, first of all, it has led to fears among our european allies that if trump wins, he's going to pull out of nato of together. during the time, and this is vitally important, in which a russian dictator is weaving the first ground war in europe since world war ii. but yesterday, in e south carolina, trump took things about a mile further than that. he said if nato countries don't pay more, the u.s. will break its commitment to protect them against a russian attack. and he said he would encourage, encourage russia to do whatever they want to those countries. here it is. >> nato's busted until i came

along. i said everybody is gonna pay, they said if we don't pay, or use are going to protect us? i said absolutely not. they couldn't idbelieve the answer. one of the presidents of the big country stood up and said, sir, if we don't pay and we are attacked by russia, will you protect us? i said you didn't pay, you delinquent, he said yes, let's say that happened. no i would not protect you. in fact, i would encourage them to do whatever they want. >> i would encourage them to do whatever they want. now look, he says a lot of stuff. but that's the republican front runner for the president of the united states. signaling to the kremlin that will give them a free hand to invade their european neighbors if he's given a second term. and as commander-in-chief, he have the united states stand back and watch it happen. let's be clear about what that would mean. any attack on a nato ally, would trigger a massive show of force by r its members across t world. that's because under article

five, an attack on one is considered an attack on all. just take it from edthe nato secretary general who responded to trump's comments with this, quote, any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the u.s. and puts american and european soldiers at increased risk. donald trump is not only saying he wouldn't come to the defense of a ldnato ally, he is invitin russia to attack them. i cannot tell you how terrifying that ottype of language ifis for our allies sitting and listening to what he's saying. and also how happy it must make vladimir putin. that's more than the kremlin could've inasked for. even vefrom donald trump. joining me now is someone who understands the stakes here better rsthan almost anyone. democratic congressman adam schiff. congressman, thank you so much for joining . me this afternoon i'm so grateful to have your expertise, given what i just started the show talking about. i guess we shouldn't be surprised, but when you were share of the house intel community, heand you spent a go amount of time looking at donald trump and russia, how do

you think vladimir putin heard remarks like the ones he made yesterday? for >> putin must be absolutely thrilled. if you look at it from putin's perspective, the war isn't going wwell in ukraine for russia. russians keep going back in body bags. nato's large around them with two new nations joining nato. nato nato is strengthening, and along comes donald trump. there to defeat from the jaws of victory for russia. and for the united states and s our nato allies. it couldn't come at a worse time, trump's republican party is holding up aid to ukraine. trump is the gift that won't stop umgiving to vladimir putin and he thinks -- donald trump thinks this makes him sound strong. but it just makes him look like an incredibly weak leader. week in not bolstering our alliances, week in undermining our security, we have benefited

from that nato alliance as much if not more than any other nation. and for him to belittle it this way, for him to signal to our allies you can't rely on america anymore, it just couldn't be more dangerous and destructive. >> it's such an important point. as you just noted, simultaneously right now, there's no movement and moving forward emfunding to support ukraine ukraine in the war against russia. and 2016 feels like a long time ago, but a . lot of these thing could repeat themselves. as you think about this trump putin relationship, if he gets a second term, what concerns you the most? >> what concerns me the most is essentially our allies, that he realizes the united states where the dictators of the world. he makes common cause with fellow autocrats. he seems to admire dictators, rs he seems to have -- -- for democracies. that kind of realignment, that kind of turned down of an international law based order,

which has protected the united states and done so much to increase and improve our security, would be so destabilizing. destabilizing to a security wise, destabilizing in terms of our economy, which would take a colossal hit. but we would give up our historic responsibility of defending democracy, and as we would see our own democracy at home undermined, we would also see the cause of democracy around the world just -- >> putin could be attempting to intervene in our election in 2024, and should we all be spending more time talking about that? >> i am very concerned about it. it wouldn't be the first time that russia's intervened. it would be the first time they tried to -- donald trump. and they have so much more at stake today than they did in 2016. with a war going on in ukraine,

with nato enlarging around it, they feel beleaguered, and here comes donald trump. they have more at stake, they have less reason to avoid risk, the united states is supporting ukraine in the war, or has been until trump's influence on the gop. so they have more at stake now than they did before, they have less diversion than they do before, so we should fully expect them to engage. it's just a question of how ho much they engage. >> more at stake now. such an important thing for people to remember. as i noted opearlier, there's a lot iof legal news this week, and i want to get to that. i want to start with robert hers report. what is your overall reaction to that report? >> as a former federal prosecutor, my reaction was robert hur couldn't make a legal case against joe biden. so he decided to make a political case against joe biden. what he did was willful, that is, from her. what he did was deliberate, and

what he did he knew would damage joe biden clip politically and gratified donald trump. it was a political decision that flies in the face of what department of justice policy is, and i can tell you this. a proper were allying prosecutor, he would be disciplined or fired. you don't do that. you set out, okay, we can bring a case or we can't. but gratuitously involving yourself in gran election campaign, in fact, during a campaign, to make every effort not mpto do anything suggesting politics, what he did was quite deliberate, and destructive. and also just plain false. >> you're right, it's interesting >>to see you say he would be fired if a range of circumstances. do you think he should appear before congress and answer some questions? would you like to see that happen? >> i think he will probably be invited by republicans because they can count on him to continue -- department policy and bashing joe biden.

i think they would view that is a great political gift. but this is so horribly inappropriate. he couldn't make a legal case, and so he's doing what he can to damage joe biden. look, i sat in a lot of depositions, i remember to posing rcarl rove. i can't remember how many dozens and dozens of times that roe said he couldn't recall. nobody questioned his cognitive ability, it was quite transparent in the case of carl rove, what he was doing. but if you don't remember specifically the facts of things that happened years ago, which gsis not uncommon, don't try to reinvent what took place. and there is nothing i think unusual about the deposition in which people can recalled each. but to extrapolate from that and make a political attack, that is just zachary by mr. her. >> in fact, ivanka trump said that about 29 or 30 times, i read this morning. before i let you go, quickly, i

wanted to ask you, there's certain limitations on a special counsel statute. do you think attorney general merrick garland would've done something differently here? could he have? >> he could have, he could've pointed to someone else, he could've pointed at a different special counsel -- really bent over backwards to do the right thing, to withdraw the department from the terrible reputation it had under trump of being politicized and tragically, edthat requires you to anticipate a certain amount of professionalism and faith in the system and faith in the people who were appointed, and of course that confidence, that expectation was completely betrayed here. completely betrayed. and so in hindsight, it's too easy to say he should've just appointed someone. he heknew it would be more impartial, but ideally you

appoint a prosecutor that will improve public confidence in the report, you don't expect them to be a hack, and in this case, we misjudged mr. her. >> congressman adam schiff, i always appreciate your broad ro range of expertise, and really, thank you for joining me this afternoon. coming up, will the supreme court rule for donald trump on the 14th amendment, and will they take meup trump's appeal unpresidential immunity which we are expecting tomorrow? we've never needed the law firm of andrew weissmann and neal katyal before. they've been working around the clock to last eyfew days, and they're coming up after a quick break. we will be thright back.

♪♪ -no. -nuh-uh. ♪♪ yeah. oh. yes. ♪♪ oh yeah. yes. isn't this great? yeeaahhhh!! ♪♪ yeah, i could do a cartwheel in here. oh hey! would you like to join us? no. we would love to join you. ♪♪

as the world keeps moving, help prevent covid-19 from breaking your momentum. you may have already been vaccinated against the flu, but don't forget this season's updated covid-19 shot too. you can make money the hard way as a bullfighter or a human cannonball... or save money the easy way, with xfinity mobile. existing customers can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan for a year! not only will you save hundreds but you'll also be joining millions who have connected to america's most reliable 5g network. sure is a lot safer than becoming a stuntman for money. get a free line of unlimited intro for a year when you buy one unlimited line. plus, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us.

,. >> the 14th amendment and donald trump's claim of presidential immunity. >> just to be clear, under 23, you agree that someone could be

prosecuted for insurrection by federal prosecutors, and if convicted, could be or shall be disqualified than from office? >> yeah, the only caveat i would add is that our client is arguing he has presidential unity, so we would not concede that he could be prosecuted for what he did on january 6th. >> i'm asking you the question of 23 83. >> someone can be prosecuted for insurrection, just not donald trump. because according to him, he is immune. except in appeals court to said he's not. justice kavanaugh clearly didn't want to go any further on that issue, but the question of presidential immunity is likely going to land right in the supreme court's lap, maybe tomorrow. joining me now is who else but our in-house law firm, everyone's favorite legal experts neal katyal, the former acting u.s. solicitor general, andrew weissmann is the formal council to the fbi and a senior member of special counsel robert mueller's team. there's so much to get to. 500 pages on my desk, but neil,

i wanted to just start with the point i just made their, which is the overlap not from a legal sense but the fact that they are both in their laps, the 14th amendment case and the immunity case. they're not, again, legally the same thing, of course. but these justices are human beings. all nine of them. how do you see them impacting one another, if at all? >> i think there's a chance they could've impacted one and other. but i think in the end, they will see these as two separate issues. i mean, last week, as you know, i was very concerned about whether or not we would get a decision in time from the court of appeals on the absolute immunity question, and i'm feeling much better now. we've gotten a decision, it's substantively really good, it shows our legal system at its best. three judges, one of whom's a prominent conservative, saying donald trump, you've got no absolute immunity. and setting a procedural timetable that would give the case to judge chutkan as early as tomorrow, if it wasn't a run to the supreme court, which trump will do.

i think in the end that opinion is the kind of thing that the supreme court won't touch with a ten foot pole. it's thorough, it's well reasoned, it's unanimous, and most importantly, it's obviously correct. so i think that's what's going to happen there. >> now at the same time, andrew, there's an expectation of maybe both of you that they're not going to rule to kick trump off the ballot in colorado. that seems a little bit like it's giving a win to one side, essentially. but that's not how it supposed to work, you need to look at every case under the law, i'm not saying they will. do you think they will be? what do you expect? >> it's hard to imagine, given what happened this week, that they're really looking forward to taking a case where they have this political hot potato and frankly, even if they're looking at this as a sort of we want to give with one hand and take with another, that would council in favor of not taking the immunity appeal. because if they take it, that

essentially is the donald trump when. they're not going to take the case to reverse the d.c. decision on immunity. that is just so rock-solid. they'd only be taking it to put their we -- premature on it, saying it hasn't been ruled by the supreme court, we are going to take it. but if they do that, they will again be delaying the start of that d.c. trial. it's the worst possible vehicle to make that ruling. so if they really want to appear -- it would be to not take this case. and frankly, as neil and i agree, with its own merits. the d.c. case is so obviously right, that decision is rock solid. >> let me -- there's so much legal news. let's jump to this robert her report, because when it comes to transparency, you made a point about -- hers report wouldn't be redacted. he wrote, quote, if we had trump c.j., we would have to wait weeks to see the report,

et cetera. clearly when outside the scope of what's typically in a report, what else could garland have done here? is there something you wish he would've done differently? >> i do. so when i was a young -- i wrote the special counsel regulations that give robert hers power, and in those regulations, we said in general that we don't anticipate the report of the special counsels to be public. and in particular, we isolated the lord language that was used in the can star report about monica lewinsky and other things, as an example of that. now, look. i believe in transparency and i think the reports in general should be given, but stuff that's raised beyond i think should not, and i was frankly shocked to see in this report a swipe at our president for being old and having a folding memory. that has no place whatsoever in justice department traditions, guidelines, and the like. as you just heard congressman schiff say moment ago.

and i'm surprised that attorney general garland didn't push back on that part, either ask for that to be removed as it should have been, or at least redacted. there's a justice department tradition that you don't interfere with presidential elections, this seems like the height of interference. it's gratuitous and her's own statements throughout the report saying there was nothing to this investigation, that there were obviously innocent explanations for what biden was doing. so to add that at the end of the report, i just think was totally wrong and inappropriate and deserves condemnation. >> to your point, it was after page 200 when he said he didn't willingly take the documents, or have the documents, which we could've said that earlier. andrew, you both have been on tv, educating on some of this and other things. i have rarely seen you as fired up talking about something as i heard you talk about robert hers report these couple of days. and you can it touched on this. you, both of you have worked in

public service in the judiciary, i know he's not probably a viewer of the show, if he is, hello robert hur. but what would you say to him right now if he was watching? >> i think the reason that your hearing that tone with respect to neal and my tone is because there is nothing that bothers prosecutions and former prosecutors more than seeing people who do not take their oath of office and their obligation and the limits of that rule seriously. and that is what i think you are seeing people react to. i think the first thing i just want to say is that i think the press needs to do a better job of weeding the report, because it keeps on getting reported, if robert hur has found that there was a criminal violation, by a matter of discretion, he doesn't think it should go forward. that is not what he found. he found that there was no

evidence to support a criminal violation. he found, as neil said, innocent explanations. and not only do you say he can't refute them, we found proof to support those innocent explanations. and that's 0.1. 0.2, what i would say to rob her, is that your role is not to be james comey two point oh. we have seen that movie. you are not to put a finger on the scale of politics. once you determine that there is an insufficient evidence to recommend going forward, that ends the equation. it is for other people to make the case for one person to run for office or another person to run for office and whether they are quick to do that or not. and by the way, nothing emceeing is weighing in on that. i'm talking about the role of somebody at the department of justice. and i also agree with neill that the attorney general has

an independent obligation, because the attorney general is the one who makes the report public under the rules. not robbed her. and he had the absolute authority to adhere to the written rules of the department of justice, which don't permit any lying prosecutor to do what happened here. >> neal katyal and andrew weissmann, good at reminding, everybody should read the report before they are reporting on that. important guidance, there. thank you both as always for joining us this afternoon. and coming up, this presidential race is going to be between 81-year-old and a 77 year old. but only one of them is facing 91 criminal counts, was found liable for sexual abuse, and -- to. i've been waiting all we can get a few things off my chest, and we will see that, next.

you want to see who we are as americans? i'm peter dixon and in kenya... we built a hospital that provides maternal care. as a marine... we fought against the taliban and their crimes against women. and in hillary clinton's state department... we took on gender-based violence in the congo. now extremists are banning abortion and contraception right here at home. so, i'm running for congress to help stop them. for your family... and mine. i approved this message because this is who we are.

so, i'm not going to sit here and tell you that the report from special counsel robert hur was a barrel of good news for

the president. it wasn't. and no reasonable person will tell you the report showing the president had classified information sitting in a cardboard box in his garage is a good thing. obviously it's not. in short, what biden has been found to have done is sloppy. but as a trump-appointed district attorney concluded, it was not criminal. and in the same report, special counsel her also had this to say. after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice. by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. now in contrast, mr. biden turned in classified documents, consented to the search of multiple locations, including his homes, sat for voluntary interviews, and in other ways, cooperated with the investigation. but this pretty clear contrast hasn't been the focus at all. not in the aftermath of the report, at all, really.

because robert -- his report as well. -- he included this line, basically questioning the cognitive abilities of joe biden. and that has been the major focus of coverage about the her report. now, i'm also not going to sit here and pretend that the president is young, he, isn't he's 81 years old. it's not a narrative, it's a fact. and the constant questioning about his age is one of the biggest challenges his campaign faces. they know that. but let's not forget who 81- year-old joe biden is running against. 77-year-old donald trump. whoever you may wish was running, it's time to settle into the fact that there will be too big members competing for the white house in november. that's what's happening. after the special counsel's report came out, the president held a news conference on thursday night. and while he had some good moments, no doubt, that's a sign, note i've missed you, our facts and force they're --

mixing up mexico in egypt in what otherwise was an interesting newsworthy answer about netanyahu, which by the way, didn't get much coverage, isn't great either. president biden makes gaffes, he has for years. but if we were going to pay the gaffe game, let's play the gaffe game for a moment. >> and we have a man who is totally corrupt and the worst president in the history of our country. who is cognitively impaired. we would be in world war ii really quickly if we were going to be relying on this man. >> a very big hello to a place where we've done very well, sioux falls. thank you very much, sioux falls. [applause] >> so sioux city, we built almost 500 miles of wall. even the obama administration says it in their stats, we were interviewing them for a couple weeks ago and they said --

>> obama dropped missiles and they ended up hitting a kindergarten. if that's the case, he's going to end up being indicted when he leaves office. >> there was a report to the crowd on january 6th, nikki haley, nikki haley, nikki haley is a judge of security. we offered 10,000 people. >> a lot of people saw those documents. they didn't see the once we, had we had them locked up and we had secret service all the time because i was president all the time. >> i wonder what doctor hur would have to say about all of that. the last one about being president all the time was not from a long time ago, it was actually just about yesterday. and we could keep going, believe me. we could fill an entire show, hours of shows. but honestly, it's beside the larger point. because trump scattering is not even close to what the biggest russ -- and if we continue to focus on questions like who is the bigger gaffe machine, or what is the mental acuity difference between a 77 year old and an 81-year-old, then we are all doing something very wrong. that is no with this election is about, because in this

election, one of the two candidates -- didn't lift a finger to stop an angry mob from going to the capital -- when they were open-y -- >> assaulting women, defaming her, and was found liable of doing just that. one of the two candidates in this race is openly threatening to use the justice department to go after his political enemies. one of the two candidates in this race is channeling adolf hitler, in some speeches. and one of the two candidates just yesterday said that he would encourage russia to attack our nato allies. none of that is hyperbole, it's all on tape. so are we really going to make this election about who confuses to states more frequently? what are we doing here? yes, the age stuff is on peoples minds. it is in the political ether. we shouldn't live in denial about that. it is also self perpetuating. for the most part, people who have never spend one second with joe biden.

but we cannot let this become the dominant focus of this campaign, because that is not what this election is actually about. -- is standing by, he's a senior advisor to hillary clinton and i think you probably have some thoughts about the echoes of james comey and robert hers report. we will be right back.

so robert moore's report on joe biden is in the first time that illegal victorious but like a political liability somehow. i remember very well watching an fbi director james comey winning ounce that hillary clinton would not be charged in connection with her private email server. good news, right? but what should've been welcome news to clinton was overshadowed by comey's scathing criticism that clinton was quote, extremely careless. and the rest is history. i'm sure my next guest remembers that episode quite well. even better than i do. joining me now is former deputy assistant director of state and former spokesperson for hillary

clinton. i mean, we've known each other a long time. >> yes, thank you for the reminder. >> let me just start. how is this been for your watch? is this like bringing it back? >> very familiar, i just hope that this week in terms of what robert perez done does not have the same impact on president biden. thankfully, we're ten months away, rather than ten days away. >> that's true, there's tons of time, and that does make have an impact. one of the things here i've been thinking a lot about is kind of how democrats always play by the rules. which is a good thing, right? there's a recognition of the separation of powers, of the justice department independents, do you wish they were playing dirty, or do they need to play dirtier in some ways? >> i don't want to call it dirtier, i would call it fiercer. more ferociously. >> that's better. >> the republicans, in the long tradition of ken starr and ship comey have turned and

ostensibly lawman into a political hit mid, in the form of this report. it is so inappropriate, that it could be made into an ad tomorrow. and robert hur should just have ended with i'm robert her and i approve this message. >> pretty much, i read somewhere that the trump team was taken aback by how negative it was. it was blind analysis, but still. so we've done a lot of strategic work for hillary clinton and others. what do the democrats be doing right now about this? >> to start, it's something that they should be doing less of. joe biden's the president, he's our de facto know many. he wants to be reelected, i want to be reelected, presumably democratic party wants to be reelected. democrats need to start fretting a lot less, and start defending him a lot more. that's one part of it. the second part of it is let's unpack. you talk about the accuser, look at the accusations. you're talking about age. i'm sorry, they're the same age. if your father's 81 and your mother is 78, which donald trump is turning in a couple

months you don't see dad married a younger woman. so that's a tie. health, please. i could spend the rest of your show talking about the difference in their health. biden has been transparent, we know why he has an odd gate. it's because he's getting older. look, -- >> he didn't do physical therapy when he heard his book. i'm sure he wishes he had now. i'd like to think i'm better at life now that i was 20 years ago. but i'm not faster, i am not in any way able to walk upstairs any better. that's just life. donald trump has lied and concealed his true health, in terms of running to an army hospital in the middle of an afternoon, in terms of the severity of his covid. it goes on and on. and then you have his mental acuity. come on. i mean, i'll just leave it at that in the bigger problem with his mental acuity is what he says when he's lucid. >> like, suggesting that russia can attack and nato ally, and

we should do anything about it. he is telling us exactly what he wants to. let me ask you about something you just said, which is democrats need to attack more. there's lots of ways to attack. as you know, you and i have both worked in democratic politics for decades. anyone -- it's the big umbrella is the big umbrella. there are a lot of democrats voting right now, as you said. >> it's what we do best. >> -- all these people who were great governors, why can't they run? should they be attacking trump on mental acuity? should they be attacking him on his threat to democracy? should they be attacking him on his threat to woman's right? all of it? how do they prioritize? >> it's all of the above. part of the problem of what's going on now is to his credit, joe biden makes few mistakes in their far between, but they're so easy to focus on. donald trump, as you said, yesterday, is talking about our friends should be attacked by russia. a week from now, if you ask me what the most recent thing trump said, i probably won't remember. because he is just saying it

constantly. joe biden, i don't know what the verbiage for what they are doing, and look, you know these people in the white house. they are smart, they don't need people from the outside sniping. but i wouldn't worry about him making mistakes. just let it roll, let the chips fall where they may. flood the zone, let him say what he's going to say, and how do people know the actual name of the president? i don't. and you know who deftly doesn't? donald trump. >> he definitely does not. i feel we're going to be talking about this more. >> it will be my pleasure. >> over the coming months, i look forward to talking to you about it. coming up, a story about why it's actually better to take a political risk if it means doing the right thing for your constituents and your country. go figure. later the team spent a lot of this week digging in the msnbc archives, and guess what we found? some vintage tucker carlson moments that you definitely don't want to miss. spoiler alert, he used to talk a little bit differently about vladimir putin that he does now. we'll be right back.

so, 15 years ago, which i can't believe it was that long, there was a big policy debate in congress about health care. and the critics didn't exactly hold back. >> i will take care of health care. >> the whole point of this is to get everybody involved in the government health care plan. >> a plan that increases deficit spending. >> ram radical communists and

socialists. >> it's not right. with the health care plan. >> we don't have leftist radicals in charge of your health care decisions. rather, medical doctors. >> democrat or republican, whoever -- we will vote you out. >> that is just a snippet of how dismal the politics were around the affordable care act. and the bill and the entire debate contributed of course to the rise of the tea party movement, which helped pave the way for maga. that's an entirely different story for another show. the point is, back in 2010, the affordable care act was political poison. in fact, the number of democrats knew that. they knew that if they voted for, it they'd probably lose their seats. and in her book about nancy pelosi -- journalist molly ball rights pelosi told -- so monumental, it would be worth losing the majority over. the point of power to her could be just to hold onto it, it had to be to achieve things that would benefit people.

imagine that. and these things did benefit people. last, year over 40 million americans receive health care thanks to the affordable care act. and the rate of uninsured americans reached an all-time low of 7.7% in the first three months of 2023. but again, those who voted for it did so knowing it was very unpopular at the time. they didn't do it hardly for their political advantage. they did it to help people. so that's one story about how to use power in congress. here's another. this time last week republicans finally had their white policy whale in their sights. remember, for years, they've been chasing a strict draconian bill that would give the president authority to shut down the border. and somehow, somehow, they landed on a bipartisan deal that would've given them a lot of what they wanted. but they'd be chasing this for so long. so it's a no-brainer, right? well, not exactly. because donald trump entered the chat. and republicans did exactly the

opposite of what democrats did in 2009. they then turn to politics instead of pursuing the policy, that in their view would've been good for the country. because their boss, their leader, donald trump, worried it would help his opponent joe biden. and of all the people to summon up, it was the deals chief negotiator, a conservative senator from oklahoma, of all places, senator james lankford. >> this is the pan that i was handed at that dusk when i was sworn in to the united states senate. what you and i signed a book that was at the desk with this pan, because i was becoming a united states senator. because the people at home sent me here to get stuff done, and you solve problems there is no reason for me to have this pen

if we are just going to do press conferences. >> there is no reason for me to have this pen if we are just going to do press conferences. looks to be clear, i'm not equating what the affordable care act did with what the sport about one of done, it was imperfect. the point is, when given the chance to achieve their political objective, at their own peril, because of trump, because of a different time, democrats did it in 2009. and republicans have the chance last week, and they chose the opposite path. not even because it was unpopular, but because donald trump told them to. and that tells you just about everything you need to know about the two major political parties in this country right now. coming up, tucker carlson's interview with tucker carlson made me feel -- and msnbc and boy, did we. we will show you what we found when we come back.

a lost card'g this thrill seeker down. lost her card, not the vibe.

the soul searcher, is finding his identity, and helping to protect it. hey! oh yeah, the explorer! she's looking to dive deeper... all while chase looks out for her. because these friends have chase. alerts that help check. tools that help protect. one bank that puts you in control. chase. make more of what's yours. i think he's having a midlife crisis chase. i'm not. you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre--

i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is. >> well donald trump is not letting -- only friends in america right now. as a noted conspiracy theorist and vocal critic of u.s. support of ukraine, tucker carlson is already well known as a kremlin mouthpiece. in his two-hour interview with vladimir putin in moscow this week, it's no surprise he mostly just sat there as putin effectively steamrolled him with revisionist history and disinformation. now, tucker can take some modicum of credit for asking him to release washington post reporter, who was an actual reporter, who has been wrongfully detained in russia

on false charges of espionage. for the most part, this wasn't an interview at all. it was a platform. but given putin that platform, without pushing back on many of the most outrageous claims, tucker handed putin a pr victory. notably, tucker did not challenge putin's baseless accusation that the united states orchestrated a coup in ukraine in 2014. he was also silent when putin made the obviously false historical claim that poland, not not to germany, was responsible for starting world war ii. at the same time, carlson never called putin's attack on ukraine a invasion, asked about the russian atrocities or targeting of civilian infrastructure, he never asked about -- russia's rigged elections, or his assault on democratic institutions around the world. and back, tucker later said that putin, a war criminal, was sincere and justifying his claims of ukrainian territory. the thing is, took her must be useful to putin, but he's no

idiot at all. deep down, he must know that his public admiration of a russian autocrat is a bit disingenuous, and opportunistic. that's because tucker used to express a whole lot of skepticism when it came to putin and russia. he did so what he was on this very network. >> i'll tell you, this as james carper once said to me and i thought it was particularly insightful, he said i wouldn't get on a russian elevator. can i just begin by saying, it's quite a stretch, no awfully generosity, to add russia and china to the list of civilized nations. your big hearted guy. do they have our interest at heart? what do you really noble vladimir putin? we dig up the dirt on the men running brush of these days. the struggle between the british and russian government over the poisoning of -- in london heats up. why the russians are refusing to cooperate in the investigation, do they have something to hide? of course they do. >> back then, tucker also referred to putin as a dictator, and repeatedly slammed russia for helping the run nuclear program.

tucker says he doesn't doubt putin sincerity, we certainly have reason to doubt his. that does it for me today. i'm looking forward to tomorrow's night show at eight pm eastern, right here on msnbc. former manhattan district attorney, saipan, fought and won a battle with donald trump over presidential immunity before the supreme court. he's going to join me to talk about that as donald trump prepares to appeal on that issue. plus, joe biden's personal attorney, bob bauer, will join us to give his take on robert hur's report. for, now stay right where you are. there is much more news coming up on msnbc. more news coming up on msnbc. >> it is a remarkable article inside president biden's five hour face-off with the special counsel. why the president's attorneys thought the interviews went well, only to be stunned by robert hers disparagement of biden's memory. we'll have the best guys to talk about this. former press secretary, curr