that does it for me this hour, i'm richard lui. you can follow me on twitter, instagram, and facebook. let me know what you think and i'll get back to you. i turn it now to reverend al sharpton and "politicsnation." good evening, and welcome to "politicsnation." tonight's lede, 48 hours after the mueller report's release, the dust hasn't settled for either side. no, it's not a conviction, ins even an incrimination, but it's still not an exoneration. for the last month, president trump and his supporters have insisted that attorney general william barr's summary of the

report was the absolution they sought for the last two years. definitively washed the president' hands of all alleged wrongdoing including obstruction. but on thursday, the redacted version of the report went live and for all that was blacked out, we did see this from the special counsel. quote, if we had the confidence after the thorough investigation of the facts that the president did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. the evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficulty issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, watch what it

does not exonerate him, end quote. according to "the new york times" today, the president has not read the report himself apart from what his advisers have told him which hasn't stopped him fuming about the, quote, witch hunt and democrats after house judiciary chairman jerry nadler subpoenaed the attorney general friday for the full unredacted report and all the evidence tied to it. meaning that it's now on this congress to make the obstruction charge stick. joining me now, katie fang, msnbc legal contributor, francesca chambers, senior white house correspondent for dailymail.com, dean obeidallah, radio host and columnist for daily beast, and sophia nelson, a contributor to nbc think and former house gop counsel. let me go to you first, katy.

it is clear they did not exonerate the president of obstruction and with the difficult legal questions, they really pivoted it to the congress. what in legal terms does that mean? does it mean the difficulty is that you can't, according to justice department policy, indict a sitting president? and are they saying you take the evidence, you charge him, congress, if you feel the evidence supports that? >> that's exactly what it is, reverend al. but for the fact that donald trump has before his named the title president of the united states, i am confident that there would have been an indictment of donald trump. however, robert mueller sticking true to the guidance and the principles that were provided to him within the department of justice through the olc memo that states that you cannot indict a sitting president of

the united states. he basically said to congress here is the framework, here is the evidence, and here's the road map for which you can pursue the appropriate charges against the president of the united states. and that is exactly what was provided in a 448-page report th and was certainly not what the attorney general bill barr decided to summarize for the american public when he came before us and tried to convince us there was an exoneration of the president of the united states. >> let me follow it up by asking this question. if, in fact, that is the case, and it is, it's in plain language there, then we are looking at the fact that with the supporting evidence also being subpoenaed now, would the attorney general resist turning over an unredacted report, try to fight the subpoena, try to fight the subpoena with himself, have they responded to the announcement by chairman nadler

of the judiciary committee announcing the subpoenas yesterday? >> well, i can certainly expect as can you and probably others that the attorney general bill barr will use everything in his power to be able to fight, turn unredacted mueller report, including all of the underlying it's not just the report itself. there's thousands of pages of underlying source documents that provide the evidence and the interviews and everything that created the basis and the foundation for the report itself. but you and i both know, bill barr did an audition memo, a 19-page audition memo in 2018. he made it clear he wanted that job. somebody needs to tell barr that he got the job that he wanted so darn badly. so you know what? i know he's going to fight it and we're going to have to see what happens when nadler decides to stand his ground with bill barr. >> francesca, you covered the white house chief correspondent for daily mail.

one thing the report did charge clearly over and over again is the president lies and that people working and speaking through him lie. what does that do to the press core when you are covering people and you don't know if they're telling the truth or not? >> certainly the white house press secretary sarah sanders' credibility was hurt by this report when she had to admit that -- she called it a slip of the tongue. >> most people lie. >> but it wasn't accurate to say that countless members of the fbi had said that they believe the president was right to fire james comey. absolutely that hurt her credibility and the credibility of senior white house officials as you were saying. i wanted to touch on something else that katy mentioned previously. you asked her about the obstruction of justice and total exoneration. the the president has claimed this is an exoneration ss this

exoneration, and the special counsel says part of the reason that he included all of this information was to preserve the documents and the evidence in case the department of justice decided after the president was out of office to take another look at this. >> dean, when you look at this, i mean, a lot of these 448 pages is on obstruction. and, of course, the backup evidence is voluminous, if not just a large amount. >> sure. >> so is mueller really saying here's the area you need to look at to congress and to the justice department? >> i think absolutely. robert mueller's report there laid out in great detail den different episodes of potential crimes by donald trump. it had an amazing analysis from going through the facts to the intent, applying the law. i'm a lawyer. to me the most damning, and i really hope people focus on it is his discussion of michael

cohen, and that robert mueller made a case that michael cohen was potentially by donald trump intimated and harassed not to testify, even talking about michael cohen's family members that his father -- there's no good faith to bring up a father-in-law other than to intimate intimidate a witness. congress has an obligation, article 1 of the constitution, their job is oversight over the kpekt. they have to have hearings. call impeachment or not, you have to investigate, you have no choice. >> sophia, mitt romney, now senator from utah, said he was sickened by the report and by the actions, including that of the president. does this mean members of your party may in some way decide that it's time to start dumping this president? we already see former governor well announcing he's running against the president, but mitt

romney, a former nominee of the party went out of his way to include the president and say what sickened him. what are you -- certainly plugged into the leadership of the republican party. what are you hearing? are people beginning to say wait a minute, this is a bridge too far for us to try to walk across in 2020? >> i think a couple things, reverend. number one, congress is a coequal branch of government, which means they are entitled to that unredacted full report. that's number one. so chairman nadler was correct to subpoena that report, and i hope that he gets it. but directly to your question about mitt, if you look at who's speaking up in the congress right now that has an "r" by their name, mitt romney is one of the very few, if not the only one that i've seen at this point. i may have missed somebody's tweet. and that's troubling. i'm not surprised that romney has spoken up because you know he took on the president a couple years ago and he made a speech about his conduct on

twitter and the tape of the entertainment tonight tape, et cetera. the question before us is what are we going to do now? what are the republicans going to do now? this is not watergate in the sense that republicans back then marched down to the white house and told president nixon you got to go. we're not going to stand by you, there's too much there there. that has not happened to my knowledge. you have republicans that are very dug in that support the president, and i think you have the same in the senate. if the house impeaches, they're not going to convict him in the senate. i believe what the democrats ought to do, and i believe someone like romney can sign onto this is a censure. we haven't had one since andrew jackson, who ironically is one of the president's favorite presidents. the kind of conduct we saw in the report is unacceptable, that

these contacts with russia that were not reported to doj, et cetera, are not acceptable. and the president the way he tried to get others to fire the special counsel or do other bat "x" crazy, i'm not going to use the words don mcgahn used, but at the end of the day the congress, including republicans, must hold this president to account, that this is not the way the commander in chief of the united states conducts himself, and it's not acceptable. >> and andrew jackson, the last one to be censored was the president that ended reconstruction, not to be confused with lyndon johnson who signed the voting rights act. indica katie, i want you to straighten out something for me. i want you to listen to attorney general william barr's bottom line thursday, just moments before the redacted report was released. >> the special counsel found no

collusion by any americans in ira's illegal activities. there was no evidence of the trump campaign collusion with the russian government's hacking. >> did not find that the trump campaign or other americans colluded in those efforts. >> no underlying collusion with russia. >> there was, in fact, no collusion. >> now, he kept pounding on there was no collusion, but he didn't address the fact that he said we couldn't say there was obstruction if we had found that, we would have said that. and i read that quote. clear up for people thank you can't charge him with obstruction if there was no collusion. aren't they two separate charges and separate circumstances? in fact, maybe the reason they didn't give collusion is because there wasn't obstruction. >> let's be perfectly clear. number one, i'm kind of -- i'm

disappointed that the attorney general of the united states would use the word collusion. we've emphasised. there is no crime of collusion. the crime is conspiracy, and i would say to you that the mueller report clearly shows that there was unauthorized, unreported contact between americans and the russians. and so i actually don't agree with attorney general barr's conclusion. but you are right, i want to make sure that everybody understands that obstruction of justice does not mean that donald trump or anyone else had to be charged with the crime of collusion. the obstruction of justice statute can be prosecuted in and of itself. it can be proven through circumstantial evidence, by people's intent, their conduct, their activities. so it's important for people to understand that just because volume i of the mueller report may say no collusion, no conspiracy, volume ii doesn't

mean we couldn't do obstruction of justice because there was no finding in volume i, that is a critical distinction with a difference. and i think that if people take the time to reallyd -- i frankly think that the mueller report, you don't need a law degree to understand the conduct. you don't need a law degree to understand that there was criminal intent behind the actions and the statements taken by donald trump and others in his sphere. and i think people sit down and carefully reed thad this documet speaks to the future of the united states. >> francesca, president trump a few weeks ago when attorney general barr released his four-page summation letter said that mueller was a fair guy, he praised mueller and praised the report. now he's gone 180-degree difference and has not only attacked democrats, used some uneaster holy week words that i won't use, referring to the report. i mean, not that i'm surprised having known donald trump, but

the whole kind of -- the way he expresses his opinion about mueller and the report, saw the change when it came out, even the redacted version. >> right. it's important to look at the time line of this too. the president's attorneys had access to this report as william barr himself said prior to the report being released. >> right. >> they felt really good coming out of it. he said he's having a good day on thursday multiple times. as the reaction and the media started to pore through it and democrats as well -- >> as they started to read but it and started picking out certain things like the part about where he allegedly said it's tend of my presidency and other words that we cannot use on this program, that was one big thing. it was don mcgahn and whether or not the president tried to get him to fire mueller somehow or end the special counsel investigation. as those items started to come out, you started to see the president get angry and angrier in his tweets and say i never

said any of those things. it's important to note that he didn't push back at the time because, remember, he never sat down for an interview and the questions and written answers were not on obstruction of justice. they were on the russia side of it. >> and when it came out, he didn't read the report. it's on a stack next to his intelligence reports that he doesn't read. thank you, katie fang. the rest of the panel is staying for more on the mueller report. coming up next, democrats in washington are now asking themselves if maybe they should impeach president trump after all. we'll pose that question and many more to judiciary committee member, congresswoman karen bass. that's next. next.ou get older. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

but dad, you've got 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?

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

the special counsel made clear that he did not exonerate the president and the responsibility now falls to congress to hold the president accountable for his actions. >> house democratic leaders are facing a delicate balancing act now that the mueller report is public. they need to charge ahead with their many investigations into president trump with some quickly using it to push for impeachment. yet at the same time they need to promote issues like health care, criminal justice, and middle class economic prosperity.

joining me is congresswoman karen bass, democrat of california. she is a member of the judiciary committee and the chair of the congressional black caucus. congresswoman bass, the judiciary committee of which you are a member of has issued subpoenas. >> yes. >> if the attorney general fights those subpoenas, both for his own appearance and for an unredacted view of the entire mueller report and supporting evidence, will your committee aggressively fight to make sure that those subpoenas are honored? >> oh, absolutely, we most certainly l. it might wind up that we go to court, but we're going to do everything we can because we need all of the information, we needton redacted report, we need the underlying evidence, and then it's not just judiciary. there's the intelligence committee, there's the government reform committee, there's financial services. so although this nightmare has

gone on for two years and it's lasted for so long, as you said a few minutes ago, we've only received the report 48 hours ago. so we really -- we've achieved a milestone in getting the report, but we actually have a long way to go. >> we heard from some of the parking lot candidates, senator elizabeth warren said it's time for impeachment. as you said, the report has only been released, the redacted report, 48 hours ago. has the congressional black caucus taken a position on impeachment, because there's some concern that we need to also deal with the issues going into 2020 like health care, criminal justice reform. what is the early feeling that you're getting from some of your colleagues? >> well, it's definitely people have different views. but let me just say in regard to the senator's suggestion. i think it would be very, very

helpful if the senator could identify some actual senators that would be interested in the second part of the impeachment because you know that we impeach in the house, but you also know that he would have to be tried and convicted in the senate. so what we need is senators that would be willing to go along with that. in terms of the congressional black caucus, we have members of the caucus who've been very outspoken about impeachment we are 55 members strong, so you have a lot of different perspectives. but in total we really have a long way to go in this process. and so the next step in the process in addition to issuing subpoenas is a number of hearings that need to happen. we have barr, we need mueller, we need mcgann, we have a number of hearings that need to happen along the way. >> when we look at this, clearly there are those of us that have our views on president trump, including yours truly, but we're also looking at the presidency.

we're looking at the office of the chief executive of this country, leader of the free world, and we're hearing people say he had knowledge that i lied and did nothing about it, lied spot special counsel that he told the white house counsel to get rid of a special counsel or defy him in some way. i mean, are question when we seeing the erosion of the standard of the presidency of the united states? >> oh, i think he has had really horrible influence and impact on the institution of the presidency. and we have to remember, it's not just in the united states. it's the way the entire world looks at us now. we've always been seen as the rock of the planet, everything is always stable and consistent in the united states. and now people look at us and say, well, i'm not so sure. it just shows the importance of the election in 2020 that we have the right person elected so

that we can essentially repair the presidency as an institution. it has been damaged. >> when you look at that and you say the right person to run in 2020, in many ways when we're looking at -- is whoever the democratic candidate or opposition candidate is assuming is president trump, they're not only talking about removing an incumbent, the presidency has in many ways been harmed. >> the presidency has been harmed, and then the republican party party have been seized by a group of extremists. until the republicans get their party back, we need the senate and we need the house. we have to maintain full control. as you mentioned a few minutes ago, we have a lot of things on our agenda. the health care reform, criminal

justice reform, the education system, voting rights, we have a long agenda. and i'm proud to say that in the first 100 days of democrats being in charge of the house, in spite of the everything we're doing, we have been passing a proactive agenda as well. >> now, with that agenda, and certainly we've laid it out here tonight and you know i've dedicated my life to a lot of those issues. >> i do. >> when we look at this agenda and we look at the overall problem with this investigation, we're talking about whether an adversary to the united states interfered with an election, with voting. so in many ways, as much as you push the agenda, you have to protect the voters in order to have them be able to elect the people to handle that agenda. so they're really not separate. i think what's lost in a lot of the pundit tri-we are talking about an enemy of the country

that clearly this report says interfered with the election. >> and then i think what's even sadder is that the republicans really don't seem to be concerned about it at all. if they were, we would have been able to pass resources to make sure that our elections were strong, but, rev, you're an organizer, and you know, and we prov proved it in november, if we organize and mobilize, we turn out and we win. we flip the house 40 seats, over 300 state seats. so all is not lost. >> the fact of the matter is a lot of people say with all this disarray, it will turn voters off. whether it's republican or democrat, it should turn them on to save the sanctity of voting in this country and those that would uphold what this country should be standing for. >> i agree, and that's what happened in november. it's incumbent on all of us to make sure that we sustain the

level of activity, the level of activism we saw a few months ago. we have to keep that up because one of the possible outcomes of this whole situation right now, we know we have a president who essentially has no regard for the rule of law, and so if things are dragged out for months and months and months and go through the courts, there's a possibility we will run right into the election next year. so we have to learn how to walk and chew gum at the same time. >> all right. thank you very much, congresswoman karen bass. >> thank you. up next, the answer to one of the most significant and outstanding questions of the earlier parking lot primary season be right back. e bright k

a programming note, tune in next week for an msnbc special where we put the hard questions to the leading 2020 candidates about inequality in america. it's called "not just black and white, race and the 2020 election." that's next saturday, april 27th, at 8:00 p.m. eastern right here on msnbc. discover.

hi, what's this social security alert? it's a free alert if we find your social security number on the dark web. good, cuz i'm a little worried about my information getting out. why's that? [bird speaking] my social is 8- 7- 5 dash okay, i see. [bird laughing] somebody thinks it's hilarious. free social security alerts from discover.

i get it that there are people who think politically no, it's going to be too hard to do this. equal justice under law, no one is above the law, and that includes the president of the united states. it is the constitutional responsibility of congress to follow through on that. >> following the release of the mueller report, democratic parking lot candidates are urging congress to keep investigating president trump. they argue that the report

further demonstrates why democrats need to win in 2020. and while we already have 18 high-profile democrats running, there's one name missing from that official list, former vice president joe biden. now numerous reports say he's expected to join the race next week. back with me, francesca chambers, senior white house correspondent for the dailymail.com, dean object obeidallah and sophia nelson, republican strategist and former house gop counsel. sophia, as a strategist, what would you recommend if you were running one of these candidates' campaigns? go all in on impeachment like elizabeth warren has? or deal with the issues and say the congress ought to deal with

impeachment, i'm talking health care, criminal justice, and other matters? >> i've said consistently that i think joe biden and a kamala harris ticket would be amazing either way. kamala, biden, harris, et cetera. i think the democrats have good candidates. that's number one. number two, i think, reverend, this is above whether or not this is about an election. this is about our republic and whether or not it will stand. if the president of the united states, as with richard nixon before him, has done something, whether it's attempted to obstruct, attempted to lie to cover, to do whatever he did as outlined in the mueller report, congress has to make a decision to honor its constitutional oath or whether or not it is afraid and it wants to play politics. as i said in the last set, i think censure is at the bare minimum of what congress has to do. they cannot do nothing and impeachment, if they impeach him, i don't think he gets convicted in the senate. i don't see the votes there and

i don't think anyone sees that at this point. so my advice would be to put together your best ticket. i think biden is polling the best and i think he's probably the best shot to get back working class white voters, to win back the suburbs that they lost, and he needs a female running mate who can generate excitement in the black base, which is critical to the democrats winning back the white house. >> francesca, you covered joe biden. joe biden will announce wednesday supposedly. where will he stand on the impeachment question? i know you don't know, but what is your guess? >> i'm overwhelmed at the opportunity to ask him. >> and what kind of candidacy do you think he will project? is he centrist? certainly you have a strong left wing now in the party, not too many on the right. how does he navigate the primaries and then remain viable

for the working class whites in a general election if he ends up being the nominee? >> so compared to the rest of the field, he's absolutely taking a more centrist position. he's already done a couple things to try and show that as the nominee he would be able to stand up to donald trump. we saw him go head to head with him numerous times when they were going on and no about whether they were going to take each other behind gym or not. he's taking donald trump directly. but he also said that he thinks there's a meanness and a mean spiritedness in politics right now, and he wants to see america shift back to the principles that the founding fathers put forward. so that's a message that he east really been pushing at these events that aren't quite campaign events, but he's been pushing a campaign-style message. >> dean, your listeners, you have a vast listening audience on sirius. >> thank you. >> are they saying impeach, walk

and chew gum at the same time and how will "r" they reacting to joe biden getting ready to come in the race? >> a change from thursday from my listeners to friday, i am on the progressive channel. thursday there was a split. some saying we're disappointed, let's move on and talk about health care. criminal justice reform, the list goes on. friday, everyone who called, at least hearings.r impeachment so i think any democrat out there has to be you to talk about holding donald trump accountable. that's the key. keep in mind there's a poll last month, 70% of democrats want to impeach donald trump. if you're refund for the democratic nomination and saying let's move on, you're overlooking 70% of the democratic base. joe biden can be responsible. he can say i want hearings into obstruction, witness tampering and abuse of power. then we can take the next step

to impeach or not. but saying just move on is discounting 70% of our base. >> but it also depends on who you're trying to reach out to. last weekend i was on a bus tour with bernie sanders through the midwest. and the campaign he's running is to convince voertsz that his agenda is not as radical as some people would make it sound, and he's trying to present himself as a credible alternative to donald trump. those are some people who voted for donald trump. he's specifically targeting people who voted for donald trump in the last election and trying to pull them back into the "d" and blue column. for those voters, that might not be the best argument if they like donald trump. >> but sophia, looks like the president's strategy is to try and put socialist on the democrats. and he's trying to run a campaign that seems like he's trying to act like progressives

are not in the vain of american politics. ironic lie, he's the one people were saying was connect ing with russia and calls everybody else socialist, but that seems where they're headed. >> the president is going to run on a, hey, i've got a great economy, your 401(k)s are doing well. you got a tax cut. whether that's real or not, you have to let the american people decide but he's absolutely going to run on the socialist issue. he's going to bring up the green new deal that congresswoman aoc has put forth. i think he's going to go for that red part of america to keep the states like pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan, that he won in 2016 that tipped the election for him, florida, et cetera. i think that's exactly what he's going to do. the question becomes does this report matter to the president's base, and to middle america. and i had a conversation with someone who was a person who

voted for trump who said to me i don't like his conduct, i think he's an immoral man, but i like the way my finances and 401(k) is going, so i don't care what he does on a moral front. i only care that the economy is doing well and i'm doing well. if that's the attitude people have, i think the democrats have a challenge. >> how do they go against that, dean, the democrats? >> anything that doesn't help corporations or the top 1% is socialism they say and social security. democrats can do two things at once. one is i'm going to hold the president of the united states accountable because robert mueller's report after two years gives credible examples of evidence of obstruction, witness tampering and abuse of power. they would be defaulting on their responsibility if they didn't, so the candidates have -- and articulate health care. we're going to cover your

preexisting health conditions. >> i'm out of time. >> about bernie sanders, he's saying to the voters you may think all those things about donald trump, but he's saying he's a pathological liar, he lied about health care and all these things, and so come along back with me. >> it's getting ready to get even more interesting. thank you, francesca, dean, and sophia for bringing your young niece. i'll follow you on twitter. up next, president trump tweets about a tragic burning of a famous french church. but he says nothing when three black churches burned right here united states in the united states. we'll be right back. states we'll be right back. i'm really into this car,

but how do i know if i'm getting a good deal? i tell truecar my zip and which car i want and truecar shows the range of prices people in my area actually paid for the same car so i know if i'm getting a great price. this is how car buying was always meant to be. this is truecar.

woman 1: this... woman 2: ...this... man 1: ...this is my body of proof. man 2: proof of less joint pain... woman 3: ...and clearer skin. man 3: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 4: ...with humira. woman 5: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. (avo): 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. woman 6: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 7: go to mypsaproof.com to see proof in action. this week almost immediately after which president trump tweeted his condolences to the french people and the cat dei can't say por ra, generously offering his own expertise on

how to salvage the structure. but here in america, no less than three historic black churches in louisiana were burned down nearly a month ago after for more than a century in what federal authorities have now deemed a racially motivated hate crime and so naturally, this president, who never misses an opportunity to curry favor with white evangelicals has said nothing, nothing about the fires in his own backyard. joining me now george johnson, columnist and author. george, it's a month later. we've been on the air dealing with this. i did one show with one of the minsters there, the president of the united states has said nothing to the people in louisiana, has not said anything in terms of the outrage of this

hate crime that burned three churches to the ground. now, clearly the whole world, you and i, certainly upset with what happened at notre dame and -- and have said that that we salute people that responded to, including the president, but where's the president's response where he is the chief executive? >> i think it's something that we've seen a lot of times any time a black issue arises, he's very silent on that in particular with this case, there's historical precedence here. arson in black churches is something that has happened in america -- >> it's been called a hate crime now. >> absolutely. we know in 1963 there was the arson of the 16th street baptist church where four little black girls died -- >> in birmingham, alabama. >> absolutely. so when you get to a situation like this in our own backyard where you have someone who's the son of a deputy set fires to

three churches, almost a month ago like you said start march 26th, april 2nd and april 4th, it didn't even get national news coverage it only got local news coverage and the notre dame burning down is the only reason the churches got any recognition. you have to look at the ideologies as well as the imperialism that's going on here when you think about a country like france that has done colonyizing in the same way as the u.s. has done across many nations so to watch someone like president trump as well as congress be so willing to offer support overseas is more of a nod to the white nationalism that we're seeing in the united states. >> again, i've been to paris, i've seen notre dame. i sympathize. i identify. i think it is a great loss and tragedy, but i feel the same way about these three historic black churches and i to not

understand -- i do not understand how anyone is not calling the president out and those members of congress for not responding. these are also historic black churches there over a century serving that community which, as you know and i know, serving that long they did it during the most dire times of race in this country and they still were when they were burned down by someone who did it because they were black churches. >> we know where the establishment of black churches in this country has always been important. black churches got established because we could not go to other places so we had to create our own safe places and we know that, like you said, when you think about the history of black churches, a lot of times we see white supremacists or nationalists attack black churches to send almost a reminder and that dog whistle that even our most sacred spaces aren't safe. >> when you look at the fact that there were over a billion dollars sent to rebuild notre

dame. >> yes. >> which i think is wonderful and people should respond. i think the goal in louisiana they've gotten over 2 million in the gofundme. i'm not trying to say what money to money, but i'm saying that, again, the coverage, the intensity happening right in our country, i think is striking and needed to be highlight in some fashion. >> but you know -- >> particularly from the president. >> i do think we can talk money to money, right, because we watched lots of american companies as well as americans send money overseas, although we knew that we had our own tragedy going on in our backyard. so even though we may not be able to raise a billion dollars for three black churches, it is telling to see how quickly people responded to a historic landmark, how historic landmarks in symbolism actually are seemingly mattering more than actual black people --

>> how some history matters differently and that is the point. thank you, george johnson. up next, my final thoughts. say with us. at panera, our salads are uniquely crafted. with peak season berries, creamy avocado. and a dressing fit for a goddess. come taste what a salad should be. and withaner doespeninsula trail?he you won't find that on a map. i'll take you there.

take this left. if you listen real hard you can hear the whales. oop. you hear that? (vo) our subaru outback lets us see the world. sometimes in ways we never imagined. that's why with dell small business technology advisors. you'll get tailored product solutions, expert tech advice and one-on-one partnership. call an advisor today at 877-buy-dell. ♪ itso chantix can help you quit "slow turkey." along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix,

you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking "slow turkey." talk to your doctor about chantix. mno kidding.rd. but moving your internet and tv? that's easy. easy?! easy? easy. because now xfinity lets you transfer your service online in just about a minute

with a few simple steps. really? really. that was easy. yup. plus, with two-hour appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ] introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started. tomorrow is easter sunday morning as a christian minster i've observed it all of my life and know that we celebrate what we believe is the resurrection of christ, but christ was one, jesus being a healer that did

not select people based on who they were or what they were. he healed lepers, he stood and gave some balance to the persecution of even a woman that had been accused of prostitution. he dealt with the blind, he dealt with those of different nationalities and faith, told the story of the good samaritan. as you worship tomorrow, easter sunday, you cannot have selective sympathy and selective identity. that is why i raise the question of the president that can find sympathy for those abroad that should have sympathy and support, but omits using his presidential platform for those at home. if we really want to deal with the resurrection of christ, be like christ, have healing for everybody, have compassion for everybody, as those that observe passover that dealt in the

middle of egyptian bondage, if you really are going to celebrate something and commemorate something, at least try to live by what it stands for. that does it for me. thanks for watching. i'll see you back here tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. eastern for a live edition of "politics nation." up next special coverage and analysis of the mueller report with chris matthews. ♪ thank you, reverend al. good evening. welcome to msnbc special coverage of the mueller report. special counsel mueller offers damning evidence that president trump attempted to obstruct justice and the yet the "new york times" reports today that those close to trump the president has not even read the report. the irony is that right now it's democrats, not republicans who are divided