>> senatorial franken, thank you. appreciate it very much. >> thank you. >> and that is our broadcast for friday night. good night from new york. we look for you monday night. russia investigation widens. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. donald trump has vladimir putin colluding with him, at least in terms of their rhetoric. both men have denied the scandal over hacking is anything more than an excuse by the democrats for losing the election last year. and yet there are certain things we know as fact. during the campaign, donald trump praised putin and talked about trying to work more closely with him if elected. 17 u.s. intelligence agencies say putin's forces worked to get donald trump elected.

trump's aides met repeatedly with russian officials and people close to the kremlin. then as soon as trump got into office, he sought to ease sanctions on russia. yahoo news reported that yesterday, late night in fact, unknown to the public at the time, top trump officials almost as soon as they took office tasked state department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic sanctions, including the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with moscow. investigators are trying to figure out what that all adds up to. president trump fired e man leading that investigation, james comey. then he proceeded to threaten, mock, and humiliate him. next week james comey will have his chance to respond when he testifies before the senate intelligence committee. it's going to be a blockbuster moment. meanwhile, vladimir putin today is speaking out there in a brand-new interview with nbc's megyn kelly and denying russia's role in the hacking. here he goes. >> you had said for months that russia had nothing to do with the interference in the american

election, and then this week you floated the idea of patriotic hackers doing it. why the change? >> translator: well, i hadn't said anything. it's just that french journalists asked me about those hackers. i told them the same thing i can tell you. hackers can be anywhere. they can be in russia, in asia, even in america, latin america. they can even be hackers, by the way, in the united states. very skillfully and professionally shifted the blame, as we say, onto russia. can you imagine something like that? in the midst of a political battle, by some calculations, it was convenient for them to release this information. so they released it, citing russia. could you imagine something like that? i can. >> convenient for the democrats? anyway, you can watch megyn

with russian president vladimir putin on sunday evening during the premiere of her new show, sunday night with megyn kelly. also tonight the associated press reports the special counsel's investigation may expand to the roles played by jeff sessions. for more, i'm joined by "the washington post's" ruth marcus, paul butler, steve schmidt. on the phone is jeff horowitz of the associated presswho broke the story of the expanding special counsel vestigation. let me start with ruth on this because i think the fact that they're now investigating spencer -- i mean sessions. sessions, the attorney general, and his deputy, rosenstein, are all being investigated. they're the ones that basically put mueller in place. he's investigating the guys -- certainly rosenstein had brought him in. >> the guy who nominated him or appointed him. in a sense, it's kind of obvious, right, because when you start to look at the reasons for the firing, you're going to need

to look at how they were involved in the decision to fire and the memo that rosenstein wrote. so unless it's something beyond the, what role did you guys the, what role did you guys play -- i haven't seen the a.p. story yet. there may be less there than meets the eye. but if i were bob mueller, i would certainly want to talk to them about their understanding of what happened. >> jeff, you're with a.p. explain the story you're breaking tonight. >> sure. so there are two things that we reported today. one of them is that the probe, special counsel's probe has been expanded to include paul manafort, trump's former campaign chairman, to include an existing probe into ukraine that involved him. the other thing is that the deputy attorney general who actually, again, the special counsel review has basically said that he is entirely willing and thinks it is appropriate if

mueller does to go and review his own role and jeff sessions' role in the firing of james comey. it's not necessarily that -- you know, it's not that they are under investigation by the probe in any way, but it is that that is open, and he said that he'd be willi to step aside and recuse himself as well. so we'd have a second recusal if there was anything that involved him. >> jeff, the big story when i read your report -- and it's a hell of a report tonight -- is that mueller is really taking this serious. he's got the bull by the horns here. he's not just doing a narrow investigation. he's reaching out and grabbing hold of existing criminal investigations like paul manafort. he's reaching out to make sure he's getting every player involved in this scheme or whatever it was to basically get involved with the russians during the campaign and/or, perhaps both, getting involved in some kind of obstruction thereafter. is that right? is it really that broad? >> that's exactly right. mueller is taking a very broad view based on what we sort of sense as to what is appropriate

to look at as part of this probe. and it is certainly very broad, the mandate he's got. and it sounds like the deputy attorney general rosenstein is also not going to be standing in the way of that and basically had said, wherever you go with this, including if it's the justice department, that's acceptable. >> thank you so much. great reporting there for the associated press, jeff horowitz. thank you. let me go to paul butler. one of our people tonight. paul, give us a sense of this legally, what it means that robert mueller is taking the bull by the horns here. he's going with it. he's not going to do a narrow little look. he's going to do something like ken starr, perhaps more on the up and up than that. but he's going after everything that looks fishy here. >> this is why no one wants to be the subject of a special counsel. there's always mission creep. you remember ken starr started out looking at a failed land transaction called whitewater. he ended up focusing on a stained blue dress and whether the president of the united states lied about his

relationship with an intern. the most interesting aspect of this development is rod rosenstein. he'd almost certainly have to recuse himself, which would mean then the person in charge, the person with the ability to fire the special counsel, is the associate attorney general, somebody who is much more ideological than rosenstein. she's a member of the federal society. she teaches at a law school named after justice scalia, and no prosecutorial experience. so that would be a really interesting development. >> it looks to me like if i were involved in this case, i'd be scared. it seems to me this guy is mr. aggressive. this is his capping of his career moment clearly. we all know that for mueller. this is the big one for him. this is where he will be known in history forever, as long as anybody is remembered, because he'll be the guy that dealt with this crime. he'll deal with manafort's dealings, flynn's dealings were turkey, flynn's dealing with russia, the money he took from r.t., the money that manafort got from those areas. he will go after carter page and

all the characters in this drama, and every one of them will be picked apart like a chicken dinner. >> no doubt about it, chris. this is the most respected law enforcement official in the united states, a decorated vietnam-era combat veteran. and with the appointment of special prosecutor mueller, we know something. we know we're going to find out what happened here before this is all said and done. before the appointment of a special counsel, we didn't necessarily know that was the case. but clearly this is a strange story. so many of the actions, whethe it's the rush to try to relieve russia's sanctions, the return of the spy compounds, all of the contacts, all of the dishonesty about the contacts with russian officials, we're going to find out everything. and this is going to be a far-reaching, wide-ranging probe. and what's always the case is that it's the cover-up that gets you. and so for those administration

officials who have been on tv on a near daily basis being dishonest with the american people on issues from big to small, i think they're going to have great difficulty because this special counsel is going to get to the bottom of what went on here. >> you know, one of the things that's developing now, as i've said, i know it's an old fogy's comment, but it's like a polaroid picture developing. you're starting to get this overlap. now today, mike isikoff who is coming on in the second part of this program, he's broken the story for yahoo that the second they got into office, the first thing they did -- you talk about showing you've got involvement with the russians. first thing i want to do is get rid of all the sanctions. they went to the state department and said draw up a list of everything nice we could do to fluff up the russians. everything you could do to make them happy. it certainly looked like a payoff. it really did look like that. >> i don't know if it's a payoff, but it's pretty extraordinary. you come into office. there's a pretty long to-do

list. >> why would you want to help the russians? >> there's a very long to-do list. and at the top of your list is russian sanctions? >> meanwhile, you dump on every other world leader. you trash every country from the french to the germans, the chinese. he pushed aside the guy from -- i don't know -- montenegro. he shoves everybody around except the one guy he kisses up to. it's embarrassing. you have to ask why is this president so besmirched or whatever the word is with russia? >> remember, they're trying -- >> that's not the right word. >> they're scrambling to undo these sanctions after you've had this extraordinary disclosure, which of course vladimir putin poo-poo' d today as partf this terr plot against him. and i want to say i felt really bad for him there. you know e after the intelligence agencies have come out and said russia tried to interfere in the election on donald trump's behalf.

so this is at the top of their list. >> paul butler, it reminds me of some guy infatuated with a woman, and he says what kind of present can i get for her tomorrow to celebrate saturday night with her? the first thing the guy says when he gets in the white house says, what can i do for the russians? this is absurdity. what do you make of a president whose first goal is to show his affection for a country that manipulated the election to his advantage and is basically trying to meddle with us? that's all fact. >> the special counsel is going to look very carefully at the president regarding obstruction of justice. and one issue will be motive. why would the president want to impede this investigation? well, now we know. he's very lovey-dovey with the russians. maybe he doesn't want that relationship looked at closely because he's concerned about what an investigation will reveal. >> why do you think he asked rosenstein to put that memo together -- rod rosenstein, the deputy attorney general? >> you know, he wanted to provide himself some cover. you know, trump called comey a showboat, but it's trump who can't shut up because then he

said to lester holt, he didn't care what rosenstein put in that memo. he was going to fire comey regardless. so, again, the president is providing the best evidence of his own obstruction of justice prosecution. >> okay. paul, you got to be getting in this process because i think this is a countdown that everybody on cable television is going to be covering like i'm doing right now. this is the countdown for next thursday's testimony by james comey. it seems to me that the first question i'd want to get to, for once in my life i'd like to see a congressional committee be coherent in its questioning. pick out a counsel, have that counsel, he or she, lead the questioning and keep it coherent. you'think they'd want to go through three big questions. what did the psident say about getting off the case of flynn? what did he say about getting himself cleared three times? and what did he say in terms of giving him a loyalty oath? all of those seem to be fat opportunities for any senator on the intelligence committee to get answered. >> that's exactly right. the really cool thing about it being a senate investigation and

not a criminal case is that the criminal rules of evidence don't apply. so the senator can ask, well, how did you interpret it? what did you think the president meant when he said that? did you think that he was trying to get you to lay off the investigation? did it feel like an order? those questions wouldn't be allowed in a criminal proceeding. the senators can ask everything they want. >> steve, i don't know about you, but i love politics, and i love mystery, and here we have it right together. a mystery story. will james comey be stopped from testifying next week? will he have the cojones to lay it out for us, what we've all been hinting at and guessing at? >> well, the white house exerting executive privilege would be politically crazy. it would be further evidence there's something to hide. besides the fact i think when you look at the president's tweets, his attacks on comey and his revealing what were the private conversations from his end is an act of waiving executive privilege. so i don't see any realistic way

except for robert mueller's objections that james comey wouldn't be testifying next week. so i think the testimony is going to be on. when james comey sits downif he's someone who i think critical of in his handling of the clinton e-mails, his de facto impact on the election on its eve. but the one thing that james comey has never been accused of in his long career of public service, is being dishonest with the american people. this is a serious person. this is a person whose oath means something to him. and he has a reputation for rectitude, for probity, and for honesty that is as long as he is tall. >> can't say better than that. thank you so much ruth marcus, paul butler, and steve schmidt. on monday by the way, former trump foreign policy adviser -- that's what he was -- carter page will be here. he's a character of sorts in this trump russia investigation. we'll have him here on "hardball," as i said, monday

night. coming up tonight, much more on that big story that broke after "hardball" last night, that the trump administration wanted to lift the sanctions against russia and it's lickety-split as soon as they got into office. and the frantic office by obama staffers and members of congress to stop them in their tracks. plus inside trump's decision on the paris climate agreement. he did it for his base clearly. but if you needed another reason, we learned today what also annoyed him was that handshake, that tight handshake he got from the new french president at the g7 summit. and top white house officials still won't say whether trump even believes in climate change. how does it even matter what he believes when he's doing is what is political for him? the "hardball" roundtable looks at next week the testimony of fired fbi director james comey. we're going to find out what he's got on trump. that's blunt. finally let me finish tonight with trump watch. he won't like this one. neither will vlad the impaler. he won't like it either. this is "hardball," where the action is. v8 or a fancy juice ?

ready, go! hi, juice universe? one large rutabaga, with eggplant... done! that's not fair. glad i had a v8. the original way to fuel your day.

earlier today in the st. petersburg international economic forum, nbc a megyn kelly asked russian president vladimir putin about the hacking allegations. his rhetoric sounded very familiar, by the way, to guess whose. trump's. let's watch. >> translator: you know, a kid of yours can send it. your girl that is 3 years old can perpetrate such an attack. >> they have no idea if it's russia or china or somebody. it could be somebody sitting in a bed someplace. >> translator: the trump team has turned to be more efficient during the electoral campaigns than the other team. they made a mistake, and they don't want to recognize this mistake. it's easy to say it's not our fault. it's all -- it's the russians. they intervened. >> i think it's just another excuse. i don't believe it. i don't know why. and i think it's just -- you know, they talked about all

sorts of things. every week it's another excuse. >> translator: our ambassador has met someone, and what is his ambassador supposed to do? that's what he gets money for. he has to hold meetings, have discussions about the current state of affairs. >> mike was doing his job. he was calling countries and his counterparts. so it certainly would have been okay with me if he did it. i would have directed him to do it if i thought he wasn't doing it. >> that's a case of dueling banjos. the trump administration, from the moment it took office, wanted to find a way to lift sanctions on russia. we've got the guy who broke the story. this is "hardball" where the action is. the future isn't silver suits and houses on mars,

it's right now. think about it. we can push buttons and make cars appear out of thin air. find love anywhere. he's cute. and buy things from, well, everywhere. how? cause our phones have evolved. so isn't it time our networks did too? introducing america's largest, most relble 4g lte combined with the most wifi hotspots. it's a new kind of network. xfinity mobile. welcome back to "hardball." during the campaign, president trump gave many public signals that he was open to friendlier relations with russia. take a listen. >> i think i'd get along very well with vladimir putin. i just think so. people would say, what do you mean? i think i'd get along well with him.

>> i would get along with putin. i've dealt with russia. i think i'd get along with him fine. >> i think in terms of leadership, he's getting an "a," and our president is not doing so well. they did not look good together. >> since the election, president trump and his administration have been engulfed by questions and investigations of course into whether or not his campaign colluded with russia and if so, to what end. yesterday as we mentioned earlier, michael isikoff, chief investigative reporter for yahoo news reported that almost as soon as trump took office this january 20th, top officials in his administration were working to lift economic sanctions on russia. isikoff goes on to report, quote, these efforts to relax and remove punitive measures imposed by president obama alarmed some state department officials who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quily pass legislation to block the move by the trump people. according to yahoo news, tom malinowski, former assistant secretary for human rights, colleagues told him that the administration was developing a plan to lift sanctions and possibly arrange a summit between trump and russian

president vladimir putin as part of an effort to achieve a grand bargain with moscow. i'm joined by michael isikoff, chief investigative reporter for yahoo news and tom malinowski. former assistant secretary of state for human rights. thank you for joining us. your story. tell us. >> look, this is kind of the missing piece in the whole russia investigation, scandal. we've been talking for months about whether there was collusion during the campaign. we've been talking about the meetings that were held during the transition, jared kushner, michael flynn. but the real question is what happened once president trump took office, and what is really amazing here is that despite all the uproar over what happened during the campaign and russia, they moved very aggressively to explore steps that could be taken to relieve tensions with moscow that included lifting sanctions, return of those

compounds, other steps. and this was something that was done very quietly. it wasn't publicly announced. there were taskings to the state department to come up with proposals to relieve tensions with moscow. people in the state department began to hear about this. >> what's it tell you? you got the report, but what's it tell you? what does it tell a person watching? >> well, it tells you that they were trying to do something for -- >> was it a payoff for getting him elected? >> you can look at it two ways. i mean obviously trump didn't make any secret about the fact that he wanted to improve relations with russia. so purely as a policy move, one could presume -- >> first moment in office? >> yeah. you have to look at the context. right after the uproar about the election, the fact that the intelligence community concluded that the russians launched this influence campaign to meddle in our election, to tilt the results, to hack the democratic national committee, weaponize

information, all the things that they were doing that seemed out of line, prompting president obama to take steps to impose sanctions. >> tom, one thing is you would think if you were caught -- if people were looking at something that looked like a quid pro quo. you wouldn't want to deliver the quid. to keep it look clean for a while. but to go immediately with it could be seen as a payoff. we've got to payoff. the guy told us he'd do it. if we don't give him something now, he's going to out us. >> the whole thing is pretty bizarre. during the campaign, a question a lot of us had was why is he talking about russia so much? that is not an issue that is going to get you votes from republicans or democrats in a presidential elen. and yet it was the one thing he was consistent about from the very beginning. so, you know, a lot of us were shocked when we heard this, but we weren't exactly surprised. >> well, where do you place it? the grand deal or the petty payoff? where are you between the two of

them in analyzing what happened here? >> well, you know, i don't -- i don't know if there was collusion. i think there are a lot of dots, and we'll see if, you know, the investigators can connect them. they certainly would have portrayed it as a grand deal. they would have portrayed it as a deal in which we gave up the sanctions but the russians maybe would have given us some counterterrorism cooperation, which is actually something the russians wanted, so it would have been actually a win/win for them and disastrous for us. fortunately it didn't happen because i think ultimately the dynamic you described happened. flynn was fired. congress woke up to this and reacted very strongly. and right now i think even they understand it would be crazy to give up the quid. >> that's what i'm thinking. michael, you're one of the best there is in this business. you and bernstein and a few other guys. you must be thinking about this. why are they working so hard? i've heard the phrase executive privilege this week about comey's testimony. i've heard the phrase fifth amendment.

nothing wrong with taking it, but it does send a signal. whether you like ior not. i've heard immunity thro out there by the flynn people, the lawyers. these are the tools you use to cover up. they're not the tools to expose a story. they're used to keep things secret. >> when there's a criminal investigation, which there obviously is, it is not unusual for witnesses to invoke the fifth amendment rights. >> how about immunity? >> and to seek immunity. i think that's, you know, a pretty standard practice. executive privilege, that's going to be an interesting one to watch with comey. look, this comey hearing testimony is going to be as dramatic as any i can think of. >> when's the last time a day was asked to testify against the president? >> john dean talking about the -- >> reporter: back in '73? >> yeah, the march 21 conversation in which he implicated the president in obstruction of justice. >> and everything he said showed up on the tapes and he didn't know there were tapes. >> he didn't have the tapes.

what's interesting is we're not likely to see the memos. >> why not? >> because most of them are in the possession of the fbi. the fbi has not released them. >> you don't think he has xeroxes of these statements? >> i think he probably has some. i don't think he has all of them. whether he's going to bring them or not, we don't know. >> why doesn't he just -- they say, do you remember what you wrote in those memos and he answers? >> it would be very good to see them. you would think the senators would want to see them to inform their questions. >> let me go to tom on this just to get the trade craft of a state department official. how unusual is it for a new president to come in, his people to come in and immediately task the state department foreign service people into a job like this? like what can we do for this country, russia? >> well, the unusual stuff started at the beginning of the transition when they were communicating with the russians but not through the government channels. that was the first thing that we notid. it's not unusual to have meetings with ambassadors, but usually they're set up by the state department switchboard or the white house situation room. so already we knew there were some unusual things going on.

tasking the state department for options to take care of your number one priority is not unusual. what's unusual is that the number one priority was not how do we shore up nato, or how do we protect ukraine, or how do we defend or values? it was how do we give things to the russians, who are our main adversaries. that was, of course, within his power, but it was wrong. and fortunately there was, i think, a great rally in this country, bipartisan, really important to resist it. and we have to stay vigilant, though, because the tendency is clearly still there. >> let me ask you a big question because i think it's at the back of all this. do people like yourself, who are foreign policy experts and who care about our situation in the world all the time, 24/7, you get up in the morning. that's what you're thinking about. is it a general assumption that russia is out to hurt us? is that a general assumption? >> well, putin, just in the last

day, confirmed that he would be very happy to see the united states break with nato. that would hurt us. that's russia's interest as he defines it. his vision of the united states -- and this is what's so crazy and sad right now. his vision of the united states is exactly the vision that president trump has expressed as his vision of the united states. that we are just another cynical great power in competition with everybody else. there are no values. there are no principles. we're just as surely align ourselves with saudi arabia as well as france or germany if it's in our immediate self interest. that's the kind of country he wants us to be. and i think all of us, republicans, democrats, are worried by this america first idea that the white house is putting out and that's reflected in everything from insulting nato to tearing up the paris agreement. it basically just makes us another cynical country in the world rather than the great country we've been. >> and we are a great country

with all our flaws, history of slavery and things like that, jim crow. after world war ii, we rebuilt japan. we rebuilt that country. we rebuilt europe. we established trade patterns within europe. we opened up free trade. we brought germany back from nothing. we brought france back and england back. we did it. what would trump have done? thank you, michael. >> we know what's good for them is good for us. >> a good world that's democratic is good for america. thank you, tom and thank you, the great michael isikoff. don't get his call-back slips. one day after the decision to pull america out of the paris climate agreement, why can't top white house officials answer the simple question? well, it is maybe a science. does trump believe in climate change or not? it's a fair question. today in the press room they kept asking it and all they got back was, i didn't talk to him about that. anyway, this is "hardball," where the action is. the best wt two servings of veggies? v8 or a powdered drink? ready, go. ahhhhhhhh! shake! shake! shake! shake! shake! done!

you gotta shake it! i she it! glad i had a v8. the original way to fuel your day.

glad i had a v8. what's the best way to get v8 or a fancy juice store?s? ready, go! hi, juice universe? one large rutabaga, with eggplant... done! that's not fair. glad i had a v8. the original way to fuel your day.

i'm dara brown. the white house has asked the supreme court to reinstate the president's travel ban after it was blocked by a federal appeals court. this legal fight pits the president's immigration policy over what lower courts have said is a policy targeting muslims. two former penn state administrators have been sentenced to two months in jail along with three penn state officials for failing to report

crimes of jerry sandusky. welcome back to "hardball." president trump yesterday announced his decision to exit the paris climate agreement. we all know that. though had he promised to put america first and pull out of the climate deal during the campaign, he reportedly spent months to listening to both sides of the argument. but according to "the washington post" tonight, arguments to stay in backfired. "the post" reports that some of the efforts to dissuade trump from withdrawing actually had the reverse effect, further entrenching his original position. when trump heard advocates arguing that the era of coal was coming to an end, he came more adamant that pulling out of the pact could help rescue the u.s. coal industry. and the position that america would sacrifice its role as a global leader wasn't enough to sway the president either. according to "the post," trump seemed unmoved by any of the appeals, instead telling the group this is what he had promised during his campaign, and he was protecting his voters.

one senior white house official characterized -- even with all this fanfare over the climate deal, we still don't know -- i don't know if it's relevant what trump believes -- if he believ in climate change or not. whher he believes it's real or not. well, today his epa administrator, the guy you think would know, said he's never discussed the issue with the president. believe it or not, here it is. >> you're the epa administrator. shouldn't you be able to tell the american people whether or not the president still believes that climate change is a hoax. where does he stand? >> there's enough to deal with, with respect to the paris agreement and making an informed decision about this important issue. that's what our focus has been over the last several weeks. >> joining me right now is ashley parker, reporter for "the washington post," and author of that article we were just talking about on climate. and ayesha rascoe. white house correspondent for reuters. i'll start with you since you wrote the piece. what -- these reasons, we don't know if he thinks there's a future for coal. he doesn't like europeans. he just doesn't seem to like them.

he didn't like the handshake. he was upset that ivanka was running a campaign against him. he doesn't like macron, the handshake, and he likes bannon again. this is high school stuff. this isn't a reason to have a national policy against the world. >> well, the key thing is that the president had basically had his mind made up when he started this debate. and to be clear, it was a real debate. >> but he does change his mind. we're not moving our embassy in israel. he does open his mind sometimes. >> he changes his mind on a number of issues. but this was one in talking to his senior advisers, he said this on the campaign trail. he meant it. he's not particularly ideological but this is something he did believe in. >> what is that belief by the y? what is the belief in not believing inlimate change? what is that belief founded on? where is the intellectual kernel of that? >> i think he believes that it is -- first of all, even though the epa and his team wouldn't answer that question today on if he believes climate change is a hoax, if you just look at his twitter feed or his past statements, he said that repeatedly. >> i'm his age and i've noticed weather used to follow a pattern.

it was cold in the winter. it snowed a lot. and in the summer in d.c., it was sweltering hot. now we get thunderstorms in may like you can't believe. the rains come in may, not in april. everything is weird. we don't have any snow anymore. it has changed. the weather has changed. >> it's not one of deeply held science. it's one of again that it was a bad deal. whether that's true or not, that was his belief. >> if he doesn't believe in climate change -- i said this last night. by the way, look at the map of africa. look how the sahara is growing. look how the sahara is growing. look how the people are going to war with each other. it isn't all just people don't like each other. there's less to eat. it's really getting horrendous. in this country, we have sandy, terrible storms. it's different than it used to be. we used to have a tornado once in a while in kansas or oklahoma. now we have this stuff everywhere. >> well, that's the thing. that's the interesting thing about or the thing that's really odd about the white house not being willing to say now whether he believes in manmade climate change. >> why are they afraid to ask him? he's head of epa. he's head of the epa. >> it seems like they're afraid

of what they're going to hear and what's going to come out. but it does seem like if you're going to make all these decisions, like the american people would need to know do you believe in climate change because if not, why continue doing these negotiations? why even think about carbon? >> i said before we went on, trump didn't look happy yesterday. i can sort of read the guy. he's reading a script. it looked like it was totally unfamiliar with him. is this because he's breaking with tillerson, his secretary of state on this, with his daughter, his son-in-law. he seemed not happy. >> what was interesting, all those themes that he was hitting are classic trumpian themes. but i watched that too, and there did not seem to be a lot of joy. >> he didn't seem happy carrying the banner of anti-climate change. >> he may not have been happy but the nationalist wing of the white house had to be happy -- >> is bannon back? ayesha, is bannon back? >> the ups and downs of bannon, i don't know like how much you

can really put in that. was he ever really down? some of it seems to be a little bit of narrative. but i think that this was definitely in his wheelhouse because this was saying, look, we don't want to be in these international cooperative agreements. >> i know. it's the old popeye doyle. i'd rather be a lamppost in new york than the president of france. i know how that works. it's idiotic. thank you, ashley and ayesha. up next, just days now until fbi director james comey, the former fbi thanks to trump, will testify before the congress on the interactions he had with president trump. i can't wait for that next thursday. i hope we don't get disappointed. what does comey have on trump? that's really well written. somebody wrote that. what's he got on the guy? you're watching "hardball."

he's a showboat. he's a grandstander. the fbi has been in turmoil. you know that. i know that. everybody knows that.

you take a look at the fbi a year ago, it was in virtual turmoil. less than a year ago. it hasn't recovered. >> director comey was very unpopular with most people. i actually thought when i made that decision and i also got a very, very strong recommendation, as you know, from the deputy attorney general, rod rosenstein. but when i made that decision, i actually thought that it would be a bipartisan decision. >> just think high school when you listen sometimes. back to "hardball." since president trump fired james comey last month, he's waged a campaign against the credibility of the former fbi director. he tweeted just this morning, james comey better hope that there are no tapes of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press. and later according to "the new york times," telling the russian foreign minister and ambassador, i just fired the head of the fbi. he was crazy, a real nutjob. this is high school. comey ll g to tell his side of the story on thursdext week when he testifies before

the senate intelligence committee, and i can't wait. for more, i'm joined by the "hardball" roundtable tonight. they can't wait. jennifer rubin, "the washington post," karine jean-pierre, moveon.org and jeremy peters. i want to start with you. you are a thinker and an observer. this is television like we haven't seen since watergate. i remember when john dean, who was not a likable guy, but just happened to tell the truth. nobody liked him in school, i'm sure. but dean came on, and it was verbatim what turned out to be in the tapes. >> right. >> he was the best possible witness and changed history. and this guy knows whether the president actually came to him and tried to get him off the case with flynn. he knows it all. >> and he has these contemporaneous notes. whether we're going to see them all or not, we don't know. >> don't you think trump hates

bureaucrats? >> absolutely. >> he takes notes. >> all that efficiency, all those notes, all those ends tied up, absolutely. people who haven't seen comey testify before, i think, are going to be in for kind of a treat. he's a storyteller. >> he's a personality too. he's got charm. >> and he always brings it, right? every hearing, comey always brings it. >> sort of a jimmy stewart quality that might come -- you know, the big tall guy coming in. i didn't want to be here but i got to tell the truth now. >> that's right. look, we're going to hear from the source himself under oath, in front of congress. you can't deny any of this. it could be very much a game-changer. we have to see what happens. but this is his moment of truth for comey. >> i hope the senate has -- they never want to give it to a counsel, but they won't, but they should. turn it over to one person, man or woman, d say,kay, going to lead the questioning of this guy. i just hope it not showboating by the senator. i want to hear exactly what you heard from the president verbatim. >> i'm going to go out on a limb here. what i'm looking for actually is not going to come from james comey or any of the senators on

the committee. i want to know what donald trump is going to tweet if he -- >> the second afterwards. >> i don't know if he has the impulse control not to. this is a president -- >> you mean in realtime? >> well, after the fact. >> or maybe in realtime. >> maybe in realtime. this is a president who has shown a real lack of impulse control. he's been told by his aides, by his lawyers, stop tweeting. this can be used as evidence against you. i don't know that he will, in the end, be able to resist it. >> the trick of p.r., of course, and i do know some of them, is you find one thing that he said that wasn't true. james carver was a genius at this. the tapes were edited. they were edited. no matter what she said, they're edited. that just impeaches the whole argument. >> they do this very good character assassination, as you said, showboater, liar. >> but comey has his own personality he can present. if he doesn't look like a showboater, if he comes out there calmly stating facts, i don't think they can do that to him. >> i think he's going to be a tough nut to crack. to your point about the senators, it drives me nuts when they do this. they talk up their time, never

let the guy talk. you know, i was actually impressed last time we had one of these hearis that at least the democrats had some cogent questioning. you do have some democrats who can carry out a line of questioning that is intelligible and that is actually helpful. >> but they never help each other. nobody gets an assist in this basketball game. nobody gets an assist. >> true. >> they're all gunners. >> to your point, i think that the focus is going to be from some senators on the other side is unmasking, which is not -- >> are they going to try to detain us on this? now it comes out today that mr. nunes was involved in unmasking in his midnight ride of paul revere. >> that's exactly right. >> when he went down to the eisenhower building to get the information and then came back the next morning was actually the guy that was unmasking. >> that's exactly right. by the way, nunes will probably become a witness of mueller because he's going to want to know what is it you guys were talking about in the dead of

night at the white house? >> recusal with this group is just a suggestion. they never carry through. >> let's talk about that big development today which is mueller, who could really be the marshal dylan and clean up this thing. he's now expanding his investigation. he's grabbing hold of the criminal investigation of paul manafort. he's going to bring in for questioning rod rosenstein, the guy who appointed him, the deputy attorney general. he is widening this investigation. >> and think of the developments such athose that have happened since we last heard from james coy on capitol hill. i think a big line of questioning is going tbeared kushner. we did not know about jared kushner's involvement with the russians, the meetings, the last time comey testified. so i'd imagine we'd hear it. i also think maybe this might not be the big to-do that we expect because comey has come to an agreement with mueller about what he can and can't say, right? mueller is not going to let him go out there and say whatever he

wants. >> you say this. you guys at "the timings."

well, meers of congress have been back home this week and many are hearing from their constituents about health care. catch this, new polling from the kizer family foundation says the

republican plan to replace obamacare, strongly unpopular. 55% have an unfavorable view versus just 31% favorable. that's in sharp contrast to how people view obamacare. the aca is viewed favorably by 49% in the kaiser poll versus 42% of you. by the way, one's been tested and one hasn't. that's one thing. and one's been liked. this week republican senator richard burr of north carolina said he can't see health care getting done this year. we'll be right back.

we're back in the roundtable. jennifer, tell me something i don't know. >> by pulling out of the paris accord, now we have mayors, congressmen, gubernatorial candidates, businesses stepping up to the plate. its an issue in every -- >> everyone is trying to replicate that locally. that's good. >> chris, you now can add the word covfefe. >> i love that word. >> i know. it's so much fun. to your words with friends repertoire. it's that popular scrabble mobile app that you see.

and the way that they define it is the amount and quality of reporting when autocorrect fails you at 3:00 a.m. >> coverage can't be spelled that way. >> so in tomorrow's "new york times" look for a story i wrote with my colleague on this new phenomenon on the far right. they are these vigilante squads that are showing up at street proceed tesses around the country and fighting with left iss. now, this is a new phenomenon because usually on the far right, they're like the kkk. they dand eir right to protest. they do so and they get rocks thrown at them. it's a defensive thing. >> now they get arrested. >> its active -- >> you're talking to every local policeman in the country whoness they're coming. >> this is the right wing fight club. >> thank you, jennifer, karine, and jeremy. finally when we return, let me finish with trump watch. you're watching "hardball."

trump watch, friday, june 2nd, 2017. vlad the impaler, the vampire of

acula appeared as daylight entry into a 21 century tale as gothic as we're going to get. putin vp sitting there spookily talking to megyn kelly, said a 3-year-old might have been the villain but not he who hacked into the democratic national committee. he wants us americans to know that donald trump was the man responsible for last year's election results, not the russians. it was trump's team's efficiency he said, and hillary's mistake that decided history, not any meddling by moscow. yes, his ambassador did meet. with the trump people. they talked about all sorts of things. that's what he gets money for, that's what he said. now we have vlad the impaler, the real dracula, telling us the truth about our 2016 election except we really don't need his help. this story develops every day, no thanks to putin or his friends in the united states. we know he hacked into the dnc. we know his and the trump people were meeting more regularly than the u.s. congress meets. we know sanctions were discussed. we know trump's people acted to end those sanctions the very day trump walked into the white house. we know his people, paul manafort and michael flynn were

getting money from the russians. we know his son-in-law was meeting with the top russian bank president. we know trump and his people are using of weapon in their legal vocabulary to keep their testimony and truth from seeing the light of day. you can believe what you see in broad daylight, or you can believe what dracula, vlad the impaler, is telling you. that's "hardball." thanks for being with us. the "rachel mad doughdow show" is right now. we have big news it breaking tonight. so big we'll be hearing from rachel herself in a few moments. it is friday night and the ap is reporting the russia probe is widening. special counsel robert mueller including in his inquiry a probe into paul manafort. as for man a fort, his political work has been widely reported. nbc confirminghe prosecutors have reviewed his advocacy for pro kremlin forces in ukraine and that came before he linked that's not great news for the white house but it does not automatically undercut their argume t