desperate times call for desperate measures and we're witnessing both today from donald trump. desperate times for particularly amass cue lit president accused of lying about poll numbers, poll that's hoe him trailing joe biden by double digits. calling the newspaper that reported on his own administration's cyber war against russia, quote, trees us in trees us in and his angry fear of vladimir putin. and writing -- slumping in the polls and athe war with his political rival, president trump has signaled a willingness to act with immunity in his drive for re-election. taken together trump's recent actions set off new alarm bells among legal analysts and political rivals who warn the president and his aides have

emerged from the scorched earth battle over the scandals of russian interference in the 2016 election that they need not feel restrained by the safeguards built into the nation's political system as they look to 2020. and if we are watching a president who is unconstrained by norms, a blockbuster report from "the new york times" should cause more alarm. the reporting we're about to share with you earned the paper an acquisition of committing treason from donald trump for publishing a story that would count as good news for any normal white house. it's about america, good guys, strengthening our cyber offense against russia. these days the bad guys. here's some of that story, quote, the u.s. is stepping up digital incursions into russia's electric power grid in a warning to president vladimir putin. but the story adds pentagon and intel officials describe broad hesitation to go into detail with trump about operations against russia for concern over his reaction and the possibility

that he might countermandate or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in syria to the russian foreign minister. and the aforementioned attacks on the president for reporting that the u.s. is on offense against russia. he wrote this, quote, this is a virtual act of treason by a once great paper, so desperate for a story, any story, even if bad for our country. also, not true. now anyone trained in pattern recognition can see something pretty obvious from this president. donald trump is gleeful to be on offense against longtime u.s. allies, the fbi, doj, congress, island of puerto rico, democrats, republicans, actors, singers, the cast of "hamilton," "the new york times," cnn really anyone, anyone except russia. >> russia, if you're listening, i hope you're able to find the

30,000 emails that are missing. i believe that president putin really feels -- and he feels strongly -- that he did not meddle in our election. i have great confidence in my intelligence people, but i will tell you that president putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. this is somebody who said we have information on your opponent. oh, let me call the fbi. give me a break. life doesn't work that way. >> the fbi director said that's what should happen. >> the fbi director is wrong. >> and that is where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. from bimingham, former u.s. attorney joyce vance with us on set, john heilemann nbc and msnbc national affairs analyst, ben rhodes, former deputy national security adviser for president obama, and politics editor for "the daily beast" sam stein, ben rhodes. i don't know what to say anymore. that's why we show the tape and reporting. it all speaks for itself.

up is down, down is up, good is bad, bad is good and it's never russia's fault. even when his own government is trying to protect u.s. from russia. >> first of all u. it's not uncommon want to at least have the capability to have a cyber offensive option. let me tell you, russia certainly does, right? and the fact donald trump is an impediment to his own government doing what's in the interest ut united states,ky tell you vladimir putin assures no such reservation about attacking our democracy and probing our power grid. you have somebody once again in donald trump putting his own interest ahead of the country's. really nicolle, this is part of a pattern. you have seen him also not just in dog whistles but invite russia back into our 2020 election on his behalf, saying there's nothing wrong with accepting that kind of help. we should be worried here we have someone in charge of our government who doesn't see that government is sieving an interest of the american people, defending a democracy, but rather he's focused on what can

he do for his own political interests. if he has to toss aside norms, if he has to aside our own security or throw his intelligence security under the bus, that's something he will do. to call this trereasonous and t it's not true, it can't be both. if he thinks it's treasonous and by definition it's true, and that reporting is suggesting they went to the national security council for comment, they did not refute the story. they did not say this is against our national security interest. so his own administration doesn't agree with these tweets. >> so let's unpack some of that. you and i worked inside the government when these athletes with "the new york times" have called with scoops like this. in our instance it was a lot of the counterterror programs put in place after 9/11. "the new york times" came to us when they learned about the metadata program. we didn't want that in the newspaper. we thought it would take away a program, we thought it would tell the terrorists one of the ways we were tracking them, through their phone records. and that paragraph in that story

gave me chills. they put in -- usually you just learn that if you're "the new york times" or "daily news." usually you get that piece of information and have more confidence publishing. that they put that paragraph in the story, the significance of putting in the newspaper, we called to make sure that by publishing a cyber program that the pentagon was putting in place as an offensive measure against russia, we were not jeopardizing national security, and we were told we were not. to put that in the paper to me just reeked of very high-level confirmation of that account. >> yes, i have been on the other side of that. >> me too. >> including cyber stories and i had to sit down with them and say -- >> me too -- >> -- this is something that could compromise us if it comes out in the paper. and the fact they got is no

response signals there's not a national security concern and, in fact, the russians know we would be doing this. it's not a surprise to russia, china or the united states that there might be cyber operations taking place. it's so bizarre. why did he feel the need to comment on this? why not say nothing? >> isn't the normal response go, team u.s.a.? >> the normal response would be what we would say in office, yes, we have certain cyber offensive capabilities. we're going to do what's necessary to protect the united states and we're not going to talk about it. want the russians to think there's capability we have. what trump is saying is vladimir putin, don't worry, i'm not going to let this go too far. >> i have two points here. one is a question. first is, yes, he didn't have to publicly say it wasn't true. he could have done a private discussion saying this is a lie. but the part of the piece i'm curious about is essentially his own staff was keeping him out of the loop on some of these own

measures, there's an obvious ethical dilemma to not having the commander in chief know about these type of programs. i'm curious what your thoughts are for whether that was a wise move, whether that's the right move, and what that might have suggested about the president's response to this? >> well, i think it speaks to a broader dysfunction and the way the national security policy is made in this administration. you see this on multiple issues. you saw a few weeks ago iran, the other big story in the news, we're moving aircraft carriers, issuing stern warnings from john bolton and mike pompeo and trump comes down and says we're not trying to star a war here and i wanted say you might want to check with the national security adviser down the hall. he has a plan you don't know about. >> but that's the question, should he be put in the loop on these things? ultimately he's the president. i'm being serious, do they need to go around him or should they brief him on these things?

>> we're in a democracy, ultimately he has to be in the loop on these things k t. but the combination of his disinterest, i don't get the sense he wants to dig down on cybersecurity or any other issue for that matter, if you combine that with the fact they might not want him to veto something, they're taking advantage of his general disinterest and disinclination to be on top of his own government. >> let me just bring you into this, heilemann, and ask you if we're not talking around something. they don't tell him about it because they think he's going to call and tell russia just like he did in the oval with the kissly act. >> i know you guys, you are having the quaintest, oddest conversation i ever heard. >> 2012 is calling and they want their roundtable back. >> you're saying well, you know, the president -- it would be in a normal white house the president would not comment on something like this. it's, first of all, it's not a normal white house. second of all, the president comments on everything. not saying it's good, not saying

it's exceptional but what does trump not comment on? in what we do we ever -- it was so far past applying any kind of a normal framework for evaluating his behavior and that's the sail thing with you. again, i'm not trying to say you guys are not right. in a normal white house these comments and questions would be right questions. but in this white house you look and say well, he comes in everything. second of ul, you're getting to the point where you're asking the real question, the national security establishment in a normal democracy with a normal president who had america's best interest at heart, of course, would have a constitutional democratic and other responsibility to notify the president. but clearly what's going on is much of the national security establishment with mr. trump said he's not fully on board with the objectives that we're pursuing by trying to keep russia at bay. they think or suspect -- >> do you see an ethical dilemma? >> no, what i see is a huge problem with the president of the united states whose loyalties are in question among his own national security

advisers, which is i think the real problem. not that they're doing something unethical but they have a president that is so far outside the norms that they have to -- >> just playing devil's advocate, but we did not elect these national security officials. we ee legislatlected a presiden. should they not be doing his world vision? >> i think they should be but for a long time they looked at president trump and said we have to tailor the information because he doesn't understand the complex information, he doesn't want to read the briefing book, we have to show him pictures. there are a number of things where the national security establishment is doing all kinds of things to accommodate a prz who is not like any other president we have seen in the united states before. >> but talking about the fact donald trump's conduct was so suspicious that acting fbi director andy mccabe opened a full-fledge investigation to answer the question is he a

russian agent? not only is this conversation out of a time capsule, we're also not addressing the central question, it and while robert mueller didn't prove a criminal conspiracy with russia, the truth is donald trump and everyone around him is leaning in to, you know, you want to see collusion, people, 2016 was nothing. here's what we got coming in 2020. watch this, joyce, and let's talk about it on the other side. >> there's nothing wrong with taking information from russians. >> there's nothing wrong with taking -- >> it depends on where it came from. >> quite frankly, the whole thing is a big distraction for the country. you look at what russia did, buying some facebook ads to sow dissent, it's a terrible thing but i think the investigations and all of the speculation that's happened the last two years had a, harsher attacks on democracy than a couple facebook ads. >> it was a joke that there's obviously never any help from the russians. >> joyce, they're experts if at nothing else moving the goal posts. i guess i'm old enough to remember when donald trump stood

in the east room and said there was no collusion. i don't even know any russians. now earn from his campaign chairman to his son-in-law to whatever title rudy holds this week, there's nothing wrong with talking to russia. and most recently donald trump with george stephanopoulos, damn right i'd listen to russia. >> it's a new world, right. collusion is good. we should all do it seems to be the world we're living in with this administration now. there's ab important point that you make, nicolle, and it's when andy mccabe opened this investigation, it wasn't just a criminal investigation. it also had a national security component. and what we know is that this entire counterintelligence question, we don't know what happened to that investigation. last week congressman schiff said that they were trying to figure out that they had not been briefed on the intelligence side of the house. we don't know what conclusions, if any, have led folks in the intelligence community to withhold briefings from the president, if in fact that's true. but you'll remember that in july

of 2017 the president issued a statement and said he talked with vladimir putin, that they would work together on a cyber program to protect elections. russia was going to make sure our 2020 election was secure. and that in and of itself makes you think that the intelligence community may have to think very carefully about what they disclosed of this president because they know all too well who he's actually talking to. >> joyce, i have two followups for you. one, we've been talking about what a normal national security team does, because ben was part of one and covered one. here's some headlines from this not-normal administration. "the new york times" in a push for 2020 election security, this is what you're talking about, top official was warned, don't tell trump. and just last week after the president's comments to george about whether or not he would accept dirt from an american adversary, about an opponent, here's what andy mccabe said about those fresh comments -- >> i'm quite certain that our

counterintelligence professionals in the fbi and in other places are listening to those comments yesterday and they are very concerned. very concerned not just about this cavalier attitude that the president has about federal election law, they're also concerned about the invitation effect that his comments may have to those adversaries that are best positioned to take advantage of it. so i am sure those folks are kind of recalibrating their efforts today and figuring out how to get to the bottom of this. i would expect that to be happening. >> joyce, my question for you is what footing is current law enforcement, counter-intel and cia on right now to protect america from another russian attack on our elections with this new and fresh body of rhetoric coming from the president, his top defense lawyer in the russia probe, his campaign chairman and his son-in-law? >> he's certainly made it a lot

easier to prove intent if there's a round two on campaign finance violations. will you recall mueller looked at whether or not the president had engaged in that kind of criminal activity and concluded he could not definitively establish that the president had the knowledge and the willfulness necessary. well, with these comments the president is saying that in 2020 if he accepts helped from a foreign country, he's doing it knowing that the criminal code says it's wrong but he has somehow supplanted that and decided on his own it's perfectly legitimate behavior. >> so if insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, if you look at everything the u.s. government did when donald trump ran for president, through "the new york times" reporting about keeping the investigation into the please's campaign confidential, you pull the stripping all the way through to the current attorney general barr, trying to rummage through the cia, to the intel products to investigate

not just the investigators but the intel, are we insane to expect a different result in '20 than we got in '16? >> yes. there's no question they will type to invite this assistance. >> haven't they already done that? >> they continue to do it. there's no questions the russianless russians will do this. why wouldn't they? it worked so well last time. this is why you need aggressive tactics from other parts of the country. the people who should be attendant are the people in the fbi, justice department. congress could be playing hardball and say we are not going to fund the department of justice unless get access to these things or fund the intelligence community. there are a lot of people who have the power to pull levers other than saying people who work directly under the president should be insubordinate. it is time to recognize this is not just somebody who cozies up to putin. the only thing he doesn't comment on is pro democracy protests in russia or hong kong.

>> why not? >> because his affinity is for these authoritarians. he sees himself as part of that club. he has more in common with kim jong-un, vladimir putin and xi. >> and his own intelligence can play a role -- >> of a all been fired. andy mccame, jim thome, they're all gone. >> the biggest point that was missed is congress actually is advocating a ton of responsibility here. >> i totally agree. >> this past week a measure was brought to the floor of the senate for unanimous consent that would require disclosure if you were contacted by a foreign government on behalf of the campaign. and this was held up -- >> why? >> that's a good question. >> they did in 2016.

>> there's a history to this but it gets even weirder than that. this past weekend a member of the house intel committee, chris stewart, a republican said you would be foolish, foolish if you did not take the chance to talk to a foreign government offering dirt on your opponent. that's a member of the intel committee. clearly there's an issue with members of the congress buying into the trump logic on this is just the way the game is played. and congress, which is actually is comprised of elected officials, does need to step up here. >> and maybe buy into more than the trump logic, maybe buy into some of the same tactics and there's been reporting on some of these people that have connections where they're basically to be doing the same thing in their own campaigns trump is doing and not just by the argument but also are perfectly happy and are themselves now inviting assistance from various foreign sources. i think, sam, to your point earlier, which i think is an important point, i do ask if you were -- if you work at the fbi, you work at the cia, you're part

of the deep state -- i'm putting quotes around that to make fun of it -- and you look at the president of the united states and you say, the president of the united states has abdicated his oath of office. did he it the other day on george stephanopoulos's interview. he's not protecting the naks security interest of the united states. he's not committed to protecting our election security. we can take measures that would achieve that. are you working for the president, or are you working for the united states of america? i think a fair number of people those attitude is i work for the united states of america, i'm working for electoral integrity, i'm working for national security and this president is no longer serving those interests so i'm going to do what i have to do not to break laws but to do what i think is right for the country. >> look what happened to the last people that did that. >> i'll tell you who's not a risk -- >> jim comey and andy mccabe did. >> and as you pointed out many paid a price. but you look around and everything we have seen so far

from chris pa ray, we don't know what he's doing behind the scenes but in terms of his public presentation, seems to be taking that approach. i'm sure if you know -- there are others who know a lot more than the fbi and cia than i do but my impression from reporting and watching these people the last few years is there are a lot of patriots. there's a deep bench of patriots in the organization whose attitude is if the president will not do the work, we have to. >> joyce, let me give you the last word. >> i like heilemann's deep bench a lot better than i like the notion of a deep state. i think it's true. there are a deep bench of professionals. they're in an untenable position trying to decide whether they report up to a president who ultimately may not have the country's best interest at heart. i think they will have to try and struggle through an unprecedented waters and hopefully can come out on the other side intact. >> joyce vance, ben roshodes, thank you for spending time with us. after the break, donald trump hates what he sees in the internal polls against joe

biden. what does he do? he fires his pollsters, of course. and elizabeth warren is surging in some polls. is it her clarity on trump's impeachment that is giving her boost? chris matthews will join us to talk about warren and the rest of the candidates. and one man talked to trump by firing mueller and another man talked to him about firing sessions. now both men may be heading up to capitol hill. the latest into the investigations on donald trump's obstruction. all of those stories coming up. p

the first survivor of alzheimer's disease p is out there.

and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight. at panera, our salads with peak-season berries... creamy avocado... and a dressing fit for a goddess. come taste what a salad should be. and order online for delivery right to you. panera. food as it should be. i felt completely helpless. trashed online, my entire career and business were in jeopardy. i called reputation defender. they were able to restore my good name. if you're under attack, i recommend calling reputation defender. and consider joining their groundbreaking campaign to give every american the right to remove old, inaccurate search results by going to righttobeforgotten.org. if you have search results that are wrong or unfair, call reputation defender at 1-877-866-8555. but we all know we're paying too much for it.

enter xfinity mobile. america's best lte, with the most wifi hotspots combined for the first time. when you're near an xfinity hotspot you're connected to wifi, saving on data. when you're not, you pay for data one gig at a time. use a little, pay a little. use a lot, just switch to unlimited. it's a new kind of network. call, visit or go to xfinitymobile.com. even your own polls show you're behind right now, don't they? >> no, my polls show i'm winning everywhere. >> we've all seen these reports

that 15 out of 17 states, you are behind 15 out of 17 states. >> nobody showed you those polls because those polls don't exist, george. those polls don't exist. i j had a meeting with somebody who's a pollster and i'm winlnig everywhere. we're getting tremendous polls. >> those poll results so irritating to the president, a few seconds later he has to go off the trord carecord to call campaign manager. >> hold it on. >> donald trump, when he digs a hole likes to keep digging and digging because he swears up and down secret internal polling showing him behind joe biden in nearly a dozen swing states doesn't actually exist. nbc news is reported the campaign is cutting ties with some of its pollster over the leak of the numbers which is sort of a weird thing to do if you think they're fake polls. "the new york times" reports for

days mr. trump tried to figure out who to point the finger at over the leepg of the data. the result was a furor in the effort of campaign manager brad parscale to tighten control. and that leaked data trump said doesn't exist, here it is, totally existing. later confirmed by members of the trump campaign from march. trump down double digits in three key states, wisconsin, pennsylvania and florida. and it gets worse for trump. biden's lead is 17 in virginia, 15 in maine, 8 in north carolina, ahead by 7 in iowa, 14 in minnesota, 13 in michigan, 6 in georgia and by one point in all important ohio. joining our conversation, former white house communications together with president obama, and chief national correspondent for "the new york times" magazine mark lebowitz. this is like getting on the scale and gaining ten pounds over the holidays and say damn the scale, i'm throwing it away.

you don't throw away the pollster. >> we fired our barbers. you're bald. no, you're fired. i'm not bald. >> it's not so much they said we were balled but they leaked it to the press. i do think, okay, in fairness, you don't want people on your polling team or on your campaign leaking bad polls about you. >> in fairness to the pollsters, i think if you were going to do an investigation into who does more leaking to trump and his campaign, trump would be guilty of doing the most leaking. >> yes, but every campaign leaks their polls if they're good so what's different about this is they're not good so they're embarrassing the person they're working for. >> let's say you leak to the press if you work for a guy that's such a -- what's a good word to use that's cable friendly, such a -- >> where are we going here? >> not you! >> you can only communicate with

your -- let me go back to normal times. >> when the polls were bad for bush and cheney, we could have a meeting in the residence and tell them the polls were terrible, we had to do things differently. when the polls are bad for donald trump, you have to communicate with him on television. >> that's one of many reasons this presidency is different now than bush, cheney, biden, everybody who came before it. this is a different calculus and this is yet another example of that. >> i think they probably understood that, i think they were trying to send the president i messaa message that you're in very bad shape. that was a landslide. >> terms of the leak the pollsters did, this is very good. here's fox news head to head. they got to fox. fox news had joe biden winning 49/39, bernie sanders winning 49/40. warren beating trump 43 -- that had to hurt. this is fox news.

fox news reported elizabeth warren beats donald j. trump 43% to 41%. senator kamala harris fox news reporting she beats donald j. trump 42% to 41% and fox news reporting mayor pete beats donald trump 41% to 40%. oh, that smarts. >> and i believe fox new reported all of that. and i think probably the people who leaked it thought we're going to try to get his attention. it may cost us our jobs but he has got to change course if he's going to seriously contend with whoever the democratic nominee is, because either it's going to be biden or somebody who beat biden which means they're potentially even stronger. and i think they're probably willing to risk losing their jobs and honestly how fun is it to be donald trump's pollster? it's probably not the best job that they've had. they've been willing to do it, right. i don't think they're surprised they got fired but they were willing to do it.

>> it's the only way to communicate with trump. advertise on television. that's just how it is, right? this is a time-honored technique that other aides have used in various circumstances. >> i have not -- >> no, other aides to donald trump have used. >> yes. >> and some campaigns, not saying jennifer, but we've seen this happen. but they do it a lot in this white house. they recognize the way to get to him -- >> if you don't read -- >> here's the craze dwling, the leaked poll, the internal poll is not just bad for him, but it's consistent with all of the polling. all of the public polling shows roughly the same thing. you look state by state, luook t the national numbers not just the fox poll but all of the polling trends over the past couple months have showed trump getting shellacked by certainly the leading democratic candidates and get ago beatting narrowly by the middle of the field candidates. so it's not like this poll is at odds, it's not an outlier. it's right in the middle of the

politics rage. >> but it is worse though. there are some states, florida, michigan and minnesota are considerably worse. trump lost that by a point and a half last term. that was a 14-point spread. so it's ominous for donald trump. >> let me show you something, i remember when he said don't believe what you see or feeling like it was orwellian or ominous. i think when you see the polls, you know what he's bracing for. >> just stick with us. don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. just remember when you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. >> so i guess the headline today though is that extend to fox news. he's going to try to undermine anything provable of a poll, a data point, an event, a quote, a statement to george. and that will be the message. >> i actually wonder if he's convinced himself of the unreality. spends his entire existence

talking about how great he is at solving things, how amazing the economy is, how wonderful he is as a leader and how besieged he is. he must think to himself, of course, the polls mucorrespond with the reality i created for myself and when they don't, he probably lashes out. and there's an interesting, larger political dynamic here, which is i talk to democrats all the time who are completely and utterly paranoid by the election in 2020 convincing themselves they're going to lose and you see stuff like this and they still think, this can't be real. trump is in a really bad political position. i don't think people appreciate it. the economy is fairly good, it's not as gang-busters as he says but it's good. unemployment is at historic lows and to be sitting at this place in the low 40s and losing these head-to-head matchups you look at the landscaping and wonder what can he change to make it better for himself, and there's not much. he can beat down the opposition, which he will do anyway. but he's in a bad political

position. i wonder if he's rejecting strategy because he talked about how great he is for so long. >> also he has 2016. the same reason -- trump and democrats have one thing in common, democrats have ptsd from 2016, which was we all thought trump would lose and we all thought trump would lose, clinton could win and we were all wrong. trump cites the same evidence. all of the polls were wrong in 2016. everybody said i would lose and i won. >> everybody's right, by the way. >> the point is correct. >> it's not paranoia if it's true. >> democrats may have absorbed too much trauma, we brace ourselves so much of the possibility of losing again, or we brace ourselves to much to convince ourselves politics has changed a whole lot as opposed thinking the guy got lucky he shot the gap. yes, there's like an incredible frustration in the country but you don't want to overlearn these lessons from '16 and think that america has changed radically when maybe -- maybe it hasn't and that's probably why

you are seeing an eventual candidate like joe biden doing as well as he is. >> the fact is 2016 was an earthquake event. there have been very few elections since then. but the ones that have gone well would indicate a lot of these numbers with democrats are very optimistic about looking at the midterms and special elections, maybe the ott optimism is well founded. >> particularly for women candidates. >> keep our eye on that. after the breaking chris matthews will join us to tell us what they want at the town hall. . but sometimes life gets in the way, and that stubborn fat just won't go away. coolsculpting takes you further. a non-surgical treatment that targets, freezes, and eliminates treated fat cells, for good. discuss coolsculpting with your doctor. some common side-effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. don't imagine results, see them. coolsculpting, take yourself further.

the first survivor of ais out there.sease and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight. for people 50 and older colat average risk.ing honey have you seen my glasses? i've always had a knack for finding things... colon cancer, to be exact. and i find it noninvasively... no need for time off or special prep. it all starts here... you collect your sample, and cologuard uses the dna in your stool to find 92% of colon cancers. you can always count on me to know where to look. oh, i found them! i can do this test now! ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers. walkabout wednesdays are back! get a sirloin or chicken on the barbie, fries, and a draft beer or coca-cola - all for just $10.99. hurry in! wednesdays are for outback. outback steakhouse. aussie rules.

joe biden have in common, they're both looking over their shoulder at elizabeth warren. the latest nbc news/"the wall street journal" poll show elizabeth warren's support over democratic primary voter has grown over the past couple of months, declined 64% say they're

enthusiastic/comfortable about her, up from 57% in march. while a combined 27% have reservations or are very uncomfortable. that's down from 33%. and just this morning a new poll out of a key early voting state, south carolina, shows warren surging to second place. if you're looking for a reason why warren is on the rise, keep in mind she was one of the first candidates to call for trump's impeachment. according to that same nbc news poll, support for impeachment is going up too. 27% of americans now agree with warren that there's enough evidence against the president to start impeachment proceedings. joining our conversation, chris matthews, host of msnbc's "hardball." chris is out in dayton for the town hall. i feel like i'm talking to these folks but you're talking to people who voted maybe for obama once or twice and switched and voted for trump and make romney voters who voted for clinton. what do they want? what's on their mind? >> we'll find out tonight. this will be exciting. we script part of the show in

terms of some of the people we bring up but we don't know what they will do. i will do a warmup before the show and urge everyone who shows up to speak their minds and passions and attitudes. we're going to have a lot of voices, for trump haters and likers, people who switch back and forth. we're going have people who switched in both directions in '16 who might switch again. we have a guy who spent 30 minutes in the voting booth trying to decide who to vote for last time until finally voting for trump because he hates hillary. we will try to get all of the passions in the room and find out. it's one night to listen, not to speak, i think for me. >> chris, i found when i went out if you listen really kwlo closely, part of the problem is us. there's always a sense we're telling them what's going to happen. we're telling them what should happen. we were telling them someone like donald trump, who said what he said on the "access hollywood" couldn't and wouldn't win. we're telling him the country is ready for a woman. we're telling them this. when you stop talking, just even

being out there, what are you hearing most? >> well, look, a lot of people -- i had a teacher back in high school who said the american voter is a negative voter. they vote against what they don't like and end up getting what they get. eisenhower was too old so we picked the young guy, kennedy. carter too weak so we picked the strong guy, reagan. we fixed the problem. w. was kind of light, mentally, i'm sorry, so we picked obama. we're always fixing the problem. what's the problem now? the crassness of this president? inability of people to believe a word he says? inequality, ethnic stuff that goes on, the division he seems to inculcate in every conversation? i think they're the obvious things but obviously the economy is a little better out here. about a buck more an hour in wages. the unemployment rate is down a couple points in ohio. things are looking good. people may judge it and that's how they will pick the next president out here.

we will find out tonight. >> chris, your town halls are remarkable and because you're so blunt, people are bluchbt with you. what's the blunt endorsement from the trump voter two years in? >> well, i think it's, you know, i think they will put up with just about -- look, we all know what's going on in this country. 40% of the country made up their mind for trump and 40% definitely against him, maybe more. but there's going to be 20 or so in the mid-thal decidle that wi this thing. they're the ones we're fascinated by, who are these people? we all know everything. but i do think there's a tremendous anti-establishment rage in the country that so strong in '16 that there was a party going on and they weren't invited to it. and that party was great. all the of the ivy leaguers get together, they go up in martha's vineyard to celebrate themselves. aren't we the greatest people in the world? all of those people getting together and celebrating

themselves and people are watching, wait a minute, where do i fit in here? you don't fit in. so we will send these people a message, pay attention to us. people don't mind being used but they damn well mind being discarded and a lot of pell felt discarded by the democratic elite. you know that and everybody on the panel knows that. tonight, right now we all know it. >> it's a good point, and it's how republicans ended up with trump and i guess it's fair to say how democrats, talking the last block everybody thought hillary would win and she didn't. it's how we get things wrong when we're in our bubbles. >> absolutely. i think chris alluded to this and you referred specifically, which is democrats lost touch with whatever this element was. >> republicans did too. let's not -- that's how we ended up with an isolationist, peace -- >> which is why the outsider won. democrats and republicans over different periods of time and for different reasons are guilty of this. but donald trump, everything he did was i'm not a politician.

and for better or for worse. and there was a lot of for worse there but people sort of put the for worse into a larger puzzle of okay, how bad could it be? let's just do this. >> if you take chris matthews concept that they're looking -- and you're smart, you know this, voters react to the president that they're trying to replace or put out. who does that bode well for in the democratic primary? >> the problem is everybody can make a case that they are the opposite of donald trump. >> that they're decent, not corrupt? >> you can. i heard andrew yang is pretty -- he had a pretty good -- he had a pretty good answer to this. he's like i'm an asian that wants to give each person $1,000 a month. i say that's the total opposite of donald trump. everybody has their answer to this. i do think it's interesting you brought up elizabeth warren at the beginning of that segment. she is someone who is wearing well with voters, women tend to

not do well early on. but voters get to know them better and put their faith in them. "the times," you all had a great piece about her in the magazine and what i thought was very interesting how much she learns. she said i watch to see if people are getting what i'm saying and if they don't, then iz chan i figure out a way to reach them. she had to reinvent herself in many different professions but always keeping at her core these working people and how she can communicate with them. and she's always churning on that. it wasn't something i had seen quite presented that way and it made me feel like she could wear really well with the voters. >> chris matthews, we have an expression with the white house, the ugly truth and these are the things we wouldn't necessarily say in front of a lot of people but the ugly truths we would say to improve a performance from a surrogate. what are the ugly truths you're hearing about either the coverage so far of the race, the job we're doing, or about the candidates themselves? you hear when you travel.

>> well, i think it's looking down on people. and i think it's true. i think people in both parties, the elite in both parties, think they had great educations and they had great families they come from and they had life pretty well, and they think because of all of that they're better than the people they want to vote for them. and that sinks threw. people get the message. you look down on me. you don't come and visit us. you ignore us. you look down. it's one thing to disagree about the abortion rights issue. a lot of people disagree about it. there's very little in the middle. but if you start looking down on pro-life people, they're going to get the message. they will say you not only disagree with me, you look down on me for caring about life. i don't like you. you're not one of me. you're not part of me. i don't know you. this message sending to me is so transparent, the elite. i don't know what you can do about it except stop being so damn light. there's no doubt that's the

appeal of joe biden. he doesn't look like an elitist. he looks like a guy who wore a sports coat in the '60s. when everything was going on in the '60s, he was wearing a sports coat. he's not very ideological. i don't think the democratic party wants an ideological candidate. they want reforms and to win and get rid of this guy. i don't think they particularly want to go radically left and have the government run the economy. my god, where is thhas that eve worked? nowhere in history has a government effectively run an economy. so bernie will lose with his ideology, which he started to sell and nobody wants to hear that old stuff. i used to go to anti-war rallies and people would show up with their card tables and brochures. nobody wants that. they want a partisan victory for the president. they want a president they're proud of, they don't want a radical left, i don't think. in a way the reform campaign of warren is interesting because it's reform. and we will see if that works.

i think her message is pretty smart. >> chris matthews, i love these events you're doing. i'm riveted by all of them. i will be watching the deciders special event from dayton that airs tonight here at 10:00 p.m. on msnbc. after the break, maybe can carpool, some of the bold-face names from the mueller report. leave their plans a little loose, as congress calls new witnesses in their trump investigation. that story is next. story is net this is the story of john smith. not this john smith.

or this john smith. or any of the other hundreds of john smiths that are humana medicare advantage members. no, it's this john smith. who we paired with a humana team member to help address his own specific health needs. at humana, we take a personal approach to your health, to provide care that's just as unique as you are. no matter what your name is. ♪

no matter what your name is. here are even more reasons to join t-mobile.

1. do you like netflix? sure you do. that's why it's on us. 2. unlimited data. use as much as you want, when you want. 3. no surprises on your bill. taxes and fees included. still think you have a better deal? bring in your discount, and we'll match it. that's right. t-mobile will match your discount. 9 eastern t . i have a phony witchhunt which is just a phony -- >> the russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. >> the power comes out, there is no collusion. but what are you trying to say now that there was collusion even though he said there is no collusion. >> he didn't say collusion. >> he didn't say collusion. >> he found no collusion and he

didn't find anything having to do with obstruction. >> under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime. >> because they made a ruling based on his findings and they said no obstruction. >> if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. >> our brilliant -- put that together with comments from the president which make it seem he didn't read all 448 pages. >> you should read it too. let's go. you should read it too. >> it's like there's no way he read the report. >> what? >> or, i mean he read it and, like, immediately erased it from his brain because it doesn't compete with his version of reality. >> i think it kind of doesn't matter. you know, he's just staying on that. he's just going to lie in the most gratuitous way possible.

no collusion, no obstruction is the line and he's never going to waver from it. you could have whipped out the mueller report and made him read it in the car and he would stair at the words on the page and read them and lie and make up new words. >> the most interesting part of the interview for me was when mick mulvaney coughed, and trump said do you want to shoot this over again. and he just started over again, all politicians stick to talking points. but it is a script, it is a show, and he will perform his part in the show no matter what character-revealing evidence is presented to him. you could literally have him -- you could play robert mueller on tape in front of him, and he'd, say, yeah, no obstruction. >> one of my favorite was him on article ii because i will bring over donuts every day for the rest of his presidency if he can tell me what article ii is. >> article ii allows me to do whatever i want. article ii would've allowed me to fire him. but i wasn't going to fire him

because i watched richard nixon going around firing are everybody and that didn't work out too well. >> anyway, article ii, there's no way he knows -- >> i'm sure he overheard some fox news segment where it was mentioned once, he's like i like that. >> he's like, hey, barr, i got article ii, right? that's mine. >> it sounds good. >> i can't speak to his, you know, i can't speak to that. but what i can say -- i actually thought here's what we can. i thought it was interesting for him to call out nixon like that. i thought -- well, i mean, he showed sort of a respect for political thinking. >> he said that on fox, too. >> i think it's an interesting idea. we've seen the first move before. >> he understood that there are limits, like, that was a bad idea.

that did not go well. >> rationalization for the fact that he couldn't order the firing himself. >> but he did order the firing and he didn't get away with it. it's why he's now lying about it and contradicting the testimony. >> he wasn't studying the history of corrupt administrations on, like, there's where nixon went wrong. >> chris christie may be heading up to capitol hill to testify to their part of the mueller report. christie had a phone conversation and was interviewed about it about trump's on firing mueller. coree lewandowski. >> there are fact witnesses and so i think that is a step forward if they can get them to testify as having offered first-person accounts that have built the case, helped to crop the case in various instances that the president tried to obstruct justice. so i think it would be good to hear from them both. i think that both of them recognize, for different reasons

and different ways, the risk that would pose, that they would post themselves if they were to perjure themselves. it's not going to get us all the way to what some democrats want. they are not going to present the opening case for impeachment, but they would i think be helpful. i think all fact witnesses would be helpful. we need don mcgahn, we need others, but they are a good start. >> we are going to sneak in a break. >> we are going to sneak break. i can't believe it. that karl brought his karaoke machine? ♪ ain't nothing but a heartache... ♪ no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. ♪ i never wanna hear you say... ♪ no, kevin... no, kevin! believe it! geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. geico could save ♪ (music plays throughout)♪

♪ the first survivor of ais out there.sease and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight. oh! oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes

are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis.

tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ ask your healthcare provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. . we are out of time.

thanks to you for watching. that does it for our hour of nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts right now with my friend kasie hunt in for chuck. if it's monday, president trump fires the pollsters whose polls he said didn't exist. the president's problems piling up as he gets ready to launch his re-election. plus, elizabeth warren surging in some polls, and both the president and joe biden are reportedly worried. and national security officials are reportedly concerned the president can't be trusted with national security when it comes to russia. if it's monday, it's "meet the press" daily. i'm kasie hunt in for chuck todd in washington. right now as the president gets ready to kick off his