as our country's attorney general. with one former bush era deputy attorney general going as far as calling barr, quote, unamerican, for his dish regard for the rule of law. and now, as of this hour, morn on the 2,000 federal prosecutors have called, writing, quote, mr. barr's actions in doing the president's personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words. those actions and the damage they have done to the department of justice's reputation for integrity and the rule of law require mr. barr to resign. the department of justice still reeling from the sudden resignations last week of four career prosecutors on the roger stone case. that was after barr interfere said in the sentencing phase for stone, calling for more lenient sentences for the president's long-time advisor, which trump

celebrated on twitter. they were punctuated by the appointment of another special prosecutor to investigate the investigation of another trump aid, mike flynn. of the fallout, quote, the justice department in the trump era has repeatedly tasked u.s. attorneys from far flung offices to parachute into politically exploeszive cases in washington, raising concerns among current and form orficials that agency leaders are trying to please the president by reviewing and reinvestigating cases in which he is personally or politically invested. pleasing the president does certainly seem to be the an mating governing philosophy behind barr's leadership of doj. trump made clear in the "the new york times" reported, quote, president trump told the white house counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the justice department to prosecute two of his political adversaries.

his 2016 challenger, hillary clinton and former fbi director, jim comey. barr, so far, has made a good deal of progress on the enemy's list, since taking over almost exactly a year ago, barr has accused them of spying on trump's campaign and undermined his investigation into whether the president ubstrulkted justice. he's meddled in the stone sentencing recommendations and now, as we remarked, tapped an outside prosecutor to review the flynn case. the can case against william barr is where we start today. former deputy attorney general under george h.w. bush and co author of op-ed we titled at the top and among those 2,000 official whose called for barr's resignation. and former fbi general counsel, and associated press white house reporter, jonathan lumere.

i have to say your entire eight-page piece, that prinlted out on eight pages for me, stopped me in my tracks. i've now read it twice. take me through the case against william barr as you lay it out. >> i think the the -- sort of the culminating event that has got an lot of people more upset than they were before are the ones lately that have to do with him meddling with the criminal sanction. and that's probably the most sacred area where politics and personal interest have absolutely no role to play and need be kept out. but the problem goes far deeper than that and goes to a whole pattern of things he's done, including the white washing of the mueller report and categorically rejecting the critical finding of the inspector general's report, including a whole series of

opinions that have been issued to support the stonewalling of congress. and a variety of other things with regoord a whole variety of traditional checks and balances. and most fundamentally of all, in terms of knowing who mr. barr is and what he stands for arall so the things he has written. the things he has done, with which are totally inappropriate are a reflection of who he is and what he believes. and what he believes is unamerican. what he believes is that the president should be a person above the law. americans don't believe the president should be above the law. and that's the reason bill barr needs to go. >> there are moments on this show where i just have to hit pause and pull back the lens. to call bill barr unamerican, from the standpoint of a legal case you've articulated in your piece today is such a big statement. and yirts not a political statement.

i read this piece twice to understand where you're coming from. explain what the means when the rule of law in this country is undermined. you have great historical references about what gets unravelled when that happens. what happens next? >> i think a number of us, probably not the majority now in the country, but a lot of people lived through watergate. and those who didn't ought to know in watergate t was a time of great disappointment for people in our justice system. there was a sense it had failed. two attorneys general went to jail, all because a president wanted to sort of abuse the system and use it to help him in his election campaign. and what happened after watergate was gerald ford, president ford put in edward leavy as attorney general and edward leavy worked very hard figuring out what needed to be done to reestablish trust in the

government. and what he realized was the center piece that was essential was that people needed to believe, in his words, we wouldn't use them today. but in his words, this is a government of laws and not men. these are again, that no person was above the law and that has been the center piece of the department of justice ever since the watergate reforms that were put in places. i worked there ten years. a number of people on your show work there had longer. lots of people who signed this letter work there had long periods of time. and those reforms by edward leavy are the heart and soul of why we believe so strongly in the department and why t is so terrible we have an attorney general trashing those protections. so, the problem ultimately is with abusing the power of the justice department and ultimately the loss of trust that comes and will come if this persists in our system of

justice. >> you are one of the few people who has come on this show that knew william barr. you also write in your piece that you were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. and there were a lot of people, former doj officials who felt this way too. that this may be a person for whom the rule of law means something, someone who will not bend it and wrap it around donald trump's tress passes of it. what happens to william barr? >> you know, i'm not one of those people who thought, when he was nominated, that he was a good choices. some people did. i have known bill for a long time. i've known him a long time, partly because we both worked for the same federal judge in the '70s. but i knew him in the late '80s when and i knew him to be a

person with strong views for the need of a powerful president. i didn't know how far he would press it. i knew he would press it farther than i ever would. i never knew until i read the memo he wrote in june 2018 when he was maybe trying out, i'm not sure. a memo he wrote to rod rosenstein, saying in esthns mueller investigation was misplaced and inappropriate. and in that memo, mr. barr articulated the remarkable opinion that the powers of the executive branch cannot be divided under any circumstances. and then he went on very specifically to say that the president's power to supervise criminal investigations, including criminal investigations of himself was

beyond reproach and something congress could in no way limit. in other words bill barr said in that memo exactly what donald trump said a week or so ago and i think many other times before, that he has the power. he, the president, has the power to interfere in criminal investigations in the department of justice and went on to say he hasn't done it. he believes that because william barr has told him he has that power. the problem with bill barr and he has acted completely consistently with what those views are and those views are unamerican. >> frank figliuzzo, i want to read something from the letter you signed today almost in spirit and a mirror of what donald has written in "the atlantic." "we call on every doj employee

tee b to be ready to report future abuses, to withdraw from cases that involve such directives or other misconduct and if necessary, resign and report publicly in a manner consistent to the american people for reasons for their resignation. ." frank. >> i didn't take this decision to sign this letter lightly, nicolle. but the time has come to let the current doj employees know we are with them, but not only that, we're at a time in history that calls for people to do more than casual observers. and that includes the folks working at doj, trying to preserve justice right now. as four of their colleagues expressed recently where they may need to speak out publicly or resign their position. rather than years from now have to tell their grand kids they sit idly by watching the rule of

law erode. and that's exactly what the attorney general is doing. he's no longer merely enabling the president to destroy the rule of law. he's now the driving force behind the president dismantling the rule of law and we can't just sit by and watch it happen. >> if you were one of the four prosecutors, would you have joined them in resigning if the sentencing guidelines were within the guidelines, right? they didn't make any sort of outlandish recommendation, which you explained on this program last week. if barr had come in and trump echoed, would you have sat along side them? >> these are hard decisions but i certainly hope i would. i hope people understand how fundamental this is. i don't think you can top what

mr. air said about putting this in context. i think this is important to have this discussed on president's day. the rule of law involves equal justice. the department of justice in this internal guidance says political affiliation doesn't matter. sex, race, creed, none of that matters. and i think most americans would agree, when you get sentenced, how you get treated should have nothing to do with any of those things. i am confident that when this comes up for sentencing, the judge is going to say i would like the know why it is that you took this position where you said the guidelines don't apply. why you say certain factors the guidelines actually say you should never consider, you're saying we should consider. they say you should consider -- this is the barr memo that overrules the career people. says you should consider the advanced age of stone. he's 67.

you know what the law is on that? you do not consider it. i think the judge is going to say i have a stack of submissions that say in every case, do not consider age. why,ing when it came to the president's flunky, his friend, you suddenly say it's okay? it will be interesting because they have to be honest. there's a career person who's signed this as well as the u.s. attorney. i do not envy that person because that's one example and i am confident the judge is going to want to know why there are certain descriptions which he never sees. so, the problem is and i think the reason he saw people resign and the reason i hope i would do the same, is you're trained the treat everyone the same, the law requires it. and it is putting forth something that is absolutely favorite treatment because this person is a friend to the

president. >> i went back and looked at how many times this president publicly called for the prosecution of his enemies. it was in 2018, he'd asked don mcgahn and i flipped through the mueller volume and he was constantly asking for, basically, dirt on all of you. everyone who worked with mueller. i mean, he has constantly sought to have someone like bill barr take over the justice department so he could investigate and prosecute and destroy his political enemies. >> part of the job description is to settle scores too, rub out his political foes. obviously, he drafted a foreign government to try and help. but we have seen this from the beginning. we know he's asked for his own roy cone in the department. and jeff sessions was to appoint, but at the end of the

day, follow guidelines and recuse himself from the russia investigation. now the president who he wants in that position. there have been some friction in recent months, most notably over the doj's lack of prosecution for former director, james comey. we know the president was frustrated charges weren't brought up to mccabe. but the stone matter is the most egregious example. but now he's reopening, perhaps the flynn case. and now, for him, largely in the rearview mirror politically. but he's still personally -- he gets angered by it and feels like it's a stain on his administration and on his tenure. we've been talking about how emboldened he's been and he's fired vindman, got rid of sondland. put his thumb on the scale for stone and other things. and part of the reason is

william barr has let him be that way. and we have an attorney general who's largely gone along. >> what's it like the watch -- i don't know anyone that left the government, that doesn't leave with deep affection -- i worked in the white house. i have deep affection. i drive by the building and feel something. what do you feel when you see the department of justice under barr's leadership? >> i know how they feel when they work there, as you say. and it's a tremendous sense of pleasure to do something you really believe is highly principaled and you're irving your nation and people fairly. it's not an easy thing to do and it's not perfect. but the idea you're working harold and you're bending over backwards to be fair and you're bending over backwards to avoid, even any appearance. there shouldn't be even any appearance of influence.

you see people that have been dedicated to that and for good reason. to have the public be trusting in the government and now you see someone who is reckless about it and he's acting essentially in pursuit of the opposite goal. he wants a government, he's told us this reportedly. he wants a government in which the president can do anything he wants. and a lot of his work now, not even just in the criminal area, but a lot of the things being done, for example litigating the boarder wall, overcoming the checks and balances of our system, like the fact there's an appropriation requirement. not if they get away with that lawsuit. so, it's very distressing and i know there are thousands across the country who feel the same way. >> you use the word heartbreaking. i think that's another good one. i'm grateful to all of you for spending time with us. after the break, we'll be joined by former vice president.

♪ 1 in 3 deaths is caused by cardiovascular disease.

millions of patients are treated with statins-but up to 75% persistent cardiovascular risk still remains. many have turned to fish oil supplements. others, fenofibrates or niacin. but here's a number you should take to heart: zero-the number of fda approvals these products have, when added to statins, to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. ask your doctor about an advancement in prescription therapies with proven protection. visit truetoyourheart.com

early voting is already underway in henderson, nevada. joining us from reno, nevada, democratic candidate for president, joe biden. thank you so much for joining us. >> happy to be hear, nicolle. >> so, we have been talking about the letter sign bide more than 2,000 justice department officials calling on attorney general to resign. do you join their call for his

resignation? >> absolutely positive. this is the most grave abuse of power i've ever seen at the hands of this president who has no, no sense of decency or understanding of the constitution. and barr's facilitating is beyond my comprehension. i used to chair the judiciary committee for years. no president, no president, no president has ever intimidated an attorney general into abusing power as much as this president has. >> i had your experience chair of the judiciary in mind when i thought i would love your thoughts about what you would do as president. do you have candidates in mind to serve as your attorney general to put this department back together? >> yes. i can think of at least three off the top of my head, including women. >> can you share them with us? >> no. because it would be a bit

presumptuous of me now. and i'll get criticized for doing it. but i've thought an awful lot about this. i really believe, nicolle, our democracy's at risk. four more years, our democracy is at risk. it's the greatest abuse of power we have ever, ever seen. the guy i used to work for is rolling over in his grave, john mccain. this guy has little social redeeming -- >> would it be your mindset to investigate this president? would you direct your doj to examine the trump organization enriching themselves or would it be your instinct to turn the page? >> turn the page in the sense that you do not direct, you do not direct the attorney general's office to engage in certain investigations or prosecutions. let the attorney general make

that judgment based on evidence that come businessfore him. but i insist whomever my attorney general was, they would scrub all the mistakes and excesses of this administration, get rid of every executive order he's instituted related to the justice department. as well as what not to do. this is not the president's personal lawyer, period. vindictiveness is not his to possess. >> i want to ask you about the impeachment chapter that's now closed. i wonder if you ever considered offering to testify, either in the house investigation, during the senate trial too, defend your name, your son's name too, take back the narrative that trump seems to command, at least during the republican-led senate impeachment trial? >> well, i did consider that. and the reason i decided not to do that is that's trump's game. every time he has a problem,

every time he's in trouble, he tries to divert attention from it. but what did disappoint me a great deal, nicolle, was the way the senate responded. it was bizarre to me. they basically acknowledged yeah, he did do that. yes, he did try to coerse the leader of ukraine into -- opening an investigation, even there -- and he said no, i won't do that. there's nothing to open an investigation about. every single solitary person he's firing now testified under oath has said i did my job perfectly, i did my job, i was honorable. everything i did was by the numbers and that prosecutor we fired should have been fired, period. and there was no investigation going on in burisma. but i thought about it and i thought i'm just playing into his hands. >> i want to ask you about something you already mentioned, john mccain. and i want to dispense with any

punditry this way. and the way south carolina is, i'm sure, viewed by your supporters as a must win for you. if you win south carolina, are you ready to take on bernie sanders edge in on-line fund raising and social media tv? are you ready to take on mike bloomberg's money in the super tuesday state? >> well, as soon as we leave south carolina, we're going to super tuesday and every single one of those states from north carolina to georgia have significant minority populations. and right now that polling data shows i'm doing incredibly well in all those states including texas and florida as relates to the primary. but as it relates to general election. with regard to michael bloomberg, he was $62 billion can buy every ad he wants but he wae wants but he kaernt, in fact, wipe away his record including

stop and frisk and policy assertions and the like. so, i'm looking forward to debating michael bloomberg. this is a guy that talked about ba obamacare in 2008 and there's a lot to discuss with michael in terms of issues and i'm looking forward to getting through -- i'm here in nevada, then south carolina and then moving on to the meat of the contest. only less than a percent of the delegates have been picked so far. >> i think i hear you placing a lot of importance on your support among african-american voters and latino voters. are you prepared to make sharper contrast on issues that matter to them? >> yes, i am. yes, i am. and that's beginning to already take place here in nevada. and michael's not even -- the

former mayor bloomberg is not even in the caucus here. he's not involved, he's not running in south carolina either, although he will get to be on the stage. in terms of the debate. we have significant differences, he and ei, on the justice syste. and with are eguaregard to bern differences are pretty stark. with regard to health care, the most important decisions up until now is i'm going to start to draw the contrast here. bernie acknowledges he doesn't know how much this program is going to cost. somewhere over $20 trillion. says we'll all find out. how do you pass these things in the democratic congress? when they already say they, in fact, do not support medicare for all, his proposal, number

one. number two, the next nominee is go having to to be able to go and not only beat trump but be in a position to bring along a democratic senate and who is going to help the most in electing a democratic senator in south carolina? in north carolina, georgia, pennsylvania, across the board? and most of that data demonstrates i'm the biggest supporter that they want involved. in all those front line states. i went to 24 states and campaigned for over 65 candidates. there were deep purple states. we won 41 votes and those front line folks endorsed me a significant number of them. so, i think we're just getting started. i didn't expect the campaign, quite frankly, the democrats, to be -- it to be this negative. and i've tried not to do that, tried not to respond but i don't

think i can be silent anymore. >> let me ask you think is about your viability. bloomberg's reason for existing as a candidate in the democratic primary seems to have one variable and it's your viability. what do you think the fact these rr close to bei-- he's close toe debate stage -- what do you think his rise in the polls says about your standing inside the democratic party? >> well, he's still way behind me, but the point is what it says is when you're able to spend $3 billion -- excuse me, alrea already spent $300 million t can get your name recognition up but can't erase your record. i have been the most scrutinized candidate from the beginning because i was number one and remained that in the polls

nationally. and so i have a target on my back. i'm not complaining. that goes with being number one. i have been scrubbed and dubbed and moved and i have survived it all. now you're just starting to look at bloomberg. we're just starting to zero in on bernie. i mean, bernie's support voted against the brady bill, which i pushed through. the background checks. five times voted against it. bernie's attitude about protecting gun manufacturers. he now says was a mistake and i think he means it. the idea we're just now starting to look at these other candidate's backgrounds now. i'm looking forward to this being a real debate moving forward. >> you were asked by my colleague, chuck todd, about the vit reall. do you worry about the tone and tenor in february of this

presidential campaign here? >> i really do. look, i know you're seeing whautsds rr been online, the vicious, vicious threats, the misogynistic things they've said. the women who are leaders of the culinary union and they received death threats. i mean, this is way, way -- this is trump like. way over the line. and i think bernie has to be -- he has to disavow this. he has to say i disassociate i don't want any of those people being with me. can you imagine what should be expoe expected of me? i'm not saying bernie shouldn't do it. >> do you think bernie is trump like? >> i think unless you speak up and take on this vitrial. i can't even use the words they

used on -- check on -- >> i know -- but i ask you because there was a days' long scandal where donald trump refused to do just this. he refused to disavow, refused to disavow. i'm asking do you think bernie sanders is acting trump-like in his not disavowing those enthusiastic about him. >> and the white supremacists are enthusiastic about trump. >> this reluctance to disavow, is it something that in bernie sanders worries you? >> it's something that worries me about being able to unify this country. again, can you imagine if any of my supporters did that, my not condemning them and saying i don't want their support? >> i agree with you.

a question based on my ptsd from watching the 2016 primary. a lot of us bemoaned the fact there was trump and his support and it was enthusiastic and the nontrump vote was split between my former boss, jeb bush and marco rubio. this primary is shaping up similar to the 2016 republican primary where maybe you and mayor pete and bloomberg and klobuchar are splitting up the non-bernie vote. >> look, one of the things we've all learned is nobody, even in the first two caucus and primary got more than 23% of the vote, number one. so, it's not quite what it was before. number two, the one thing all the data shows is that the voters in the democratic primary have won overarching desire too, beat donald trump. and whoo's most likely to beat

him? a former republican who just turned democrat likely to beat donald trump? is bernie a democratic socialist, a good guy, most likely to defeat donald trump? who's most likely to defeat donald trump? i've been saying from the beginning i think the most critical thing that has to happen is we have to elect someone in fact who can run in the purple states, win pennsylvania, win in florida, in places we haven't won before. and we didn't win last time. up to now, i have the most diverse support, the most diverse support. white high school educated voters, as well as african-americans, latinos. i'm not saying i have the absolute majority in every category. but my hope and expectation is they'll focus on three things. who can beat trump and who can bring along a democratic senate? and once they get elected, who has the skill and demonstrated

ability to get things done across the aisle? that matter a lot how to marecon people. and lastly, who can unify the country. and that's what i've been running on from the beginning to restore this country. and we'll find out whether or not i can break through on that in the crowded field. >> i know what these days are like. they're long and grueling. i'm thankful for putting on a coat and tie and spending so much time with me. thank you, sir. >> thanks an awful lot. when we come back the table weighs in on what we just heard from the former vice president. or try lobster sautéed with crab, shrimp and more. so hurry in and let's lobsterfest. or get it to go at red lobster dot com wean air force veteran made of adoing what's right,.. not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it -

with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa

joining jonathan and i, and editor at large, charley sykes. >> first of all, congratulations. >> republican 2016 ptsd will be with me forever. but i do worry about them splitting up the non-bernie vote. >> becoming more toxic and going after the bernie bros out there. >> and he's absolutely right. if a former vice president had people doing things in his name that bernie supporters are doing in bernie's name, there would be a different standard. >> and bernie -- look, all these

guys have mountains of opo research headed their way. weir -- this is going to be quite a caldron for these guys. i was impressed how candid he was about it and his willingness to engage on these issues and he understands the challenges against him. but i have to say, when you wake up on president's day and the leading democratic candidate is a 78-year-old guy that just had a heart attack that won't release his medical records, the 77-year-old vice president, sinking in the polls and this wild card, 78-year-old new york billionaire who has quite a lot of things to apologize for, there's reasons for democrats to be a little edgy at the moment. >> it's also where democrats, no matter you are on this field, why there's still opportunity. i think what you just described is the why and the what is the

volatility in this race. >> totally. it is wide open in some cases. the reality is south carolina and looking ahead to nevada are far more representative of the democratic party. >> and the country. >> and the country. so, iowa, that was disaster. new hampshire, definitely not definitive. and even more so, elizabeth warren is money. and i think they're up against, not just bloomberg but also tom steyer, who might eat into some of those votes too. and getting their message out is very expensive. these are big states, expensive states. and i think it may come down to who convince donors they're still in the race. and we're going to play a role in the media as well. >> and bernie sanders is a fund raising juggernaut. though he doesn't have the means

of bloomberg or steyer. this -- >> can i say something about that? what i thought was most remarkable is how remarkable it is to hear someone who wants to be president say i wouldn't get involved whether he would be investigated. i was expecting yes, or no i wouldn't. he said, wouldn't be my call. year so far from normal, that's noteworthy and newsworthy. >> but we're not there now, so that was refreshing. elizabeth warren had a moment in summer to early fall, pete buttigieg peeked and peeked again for the right times from iowa and new hampshire. bernie sanders has been pretty consistent. and the last few weeks. people around him though hope that he puts up a decent enough number in the nevada caucus coming up and then he wins in south carolina. he's been banking on that all along.

if he only comes out by a few points with a win and fund raising issues, that's going to be hard going forward. super tuesday is just three days later. and bloomberg has been camped out for weeks. we don't know if he'll win any, but he'll be a factor in a bunch of the cases. biden -- what he needs is the south carolina win f he were to do so too, be as the comeback story, because we all like that in the media. >> i do think that bloomberg enter nothi entering into this race and him surging along with sanders has opened the opportunity for moderates because there are a lot of democrats on both wings thing to themselves i don't want to vote for bloomberg or sanders. and if joe biden can -- you know, as he was just now with you, that could help. >> i worked for john mccain, and i said that to the former vice president. he's in the same position going to new hampshire in 2008 because

he lost in iowa. there is a snapback thing and the media plays, in some ways, a larger role, where once you win the snapback, everyone forgets you're out of money. my question for him though is do you have time? the snapback's only three days before you got to face all the, what, 14 states? >> but how it opens up is important. i was having the image of the game jenga. >> i love jenga. >> you take out biden from the formula and everything falls apart and people are going whoa, are we really going to have to choose between bernie and bloomberg? so, i sense a lot of people are like can we take a second look at amy klobuchar. she's got baggage but nothing compared the other guys. and are we going to take another look at joe biden? and it there's a window there because i do think everything i

read is the democrats are very focussed on beating donald trump and with every day that passes, the possibility that they could blow this increases. >> and quickly, bloomberg, has for a while, loomed as the savior. now he's about to go on the debate stage and have his name on the ballot, people are carefully examining his record and that is going to make democrats uncomfortable. he is not perhaps the slam dunk, by his fortune, that a lot of people think. and he may be. but got to give pause and what he's stood for over his years as mayor. >> when we come back, we're going to get into the bloomberg news. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪

(announcer) once-weekly ozempic® is helping many people with type 2 diabetes like james lower their blood sugar. a majority of adults who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. here's your a1c. oh! my a1c is under 7! (announcer) and you may lose weight. adults who took ozempic® lost on average up to 12 pounds. i lost almost 12 pounds! oh! (announcer) ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. there's no increased risk. oh! and i only have to take it once a week. oh! ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) 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 include pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. once-weekly ozempic® is helping me reach my blood sugar goal. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®.

we've been talking about the vetting that is under way of mike bloomberg coincides with his rise in the polls at least for now. his popularity has opened him and his campaign to new scrutiny and criticism. in the past few days past controversial remarks from him have dominated the headlines, stop and frisk, red lining and comments about teachers unions and obamacare. now thanks to a review by "the washington post" of thousands of pages of court documents, depositions and interviews, allegations of profane and sexist comments are front and center for the former mayor. one of the most high-profile cases involves a former saleswoman who sued bloomberg

and his company. she alleged bloomberg told her to, quote, kill it when he learned she was pregnant, an allegation bloomberg has denied under oath. of the incidents, "the post" writes a number of the cases have either been settled, dismissed in bloomberg's favor or closed because of a failure of the plaintiff to meet filing deadlines. the cases do not involve accusations of inappropriate sexual misconduct. they have centered around what he said and the workplace culture he fostered. mara. >> well, first of all, if you are a new yorker, which i am, none of this is new to you. he has been vetted an vetted over again, but i think his remarks, there's no excuse for them, assuming he said them and did some of these things. there's no excuse. they sound quite different and, frankly, much worse than they did even a few years ago before the me too movement and also frankly before i would say a

white nationalist resided in the white house. so in this new context, they do sound worse. in some ways, bloomberg is a terrible retail politician and people are going to learn that. when he has all of this money to put out ads and kind of avoid the kind of vetting that traditional candidates get, what you don't learn until later is he's somebody who hates parades, he's somebody who isn't great at shaking hands, he's somebody who says the same thing. he is a 78-year-old billionaire who came up on wall street and he can be kind of a jerk. so that's what you're going to hear. he's very gaffe-prone. and i think that doesn't mean that voters shouldn't consider him or that there aren't advantages, but i think voters are going to have to make a decision about whether that's acceptable in the context of beating trump. if voters believe that in spite of all of that ugliness that he is sorry, that he's changed and that he when compared to trump is a far better alternative,

then it may not matter at the end of the day. >> the other thing that's disorienting, jonathan, is i spent days, days after days on brian's show "the 11th hour" no one who says when you're a celebrity they let you do it, you can grab them in the bleep can be president of the country because voters have wives and sisters and mothers and daughters. i'm so disoriented by this conduct. trump was ushered in after the "access hollywood" tape came out. what is the impact and what is different in a democratic candidate? >> one of the questions is do the rules not apply to anybody anymore or do the rules just not apply to donald trump. most republicans have made their peace with donald trump. we don't know if democrats are willing to do the same with their nominee, whoever that might be. there is this idea of the purity test. democrats seem so far needing to have that than perhaps republicans. it's about compromise.

nominating bloomberg is a compromi compromise. he has had comments about red lining, obviously stop and frisk is a significant thing. it's not like his stops faded after the 12 years of his in office. he still supported it until it feels like two seconds ago. a few weeks before he ran for office he apologized for it. it is someone who there's a lot of democrats who are going to remember that he was a republican and he in 2004 turned over new york city to george w. bush, endorsed him and gave him the keys to the city for the convention and cracked down on the protesters outside. so there's a lot of democrats who are just starting to reacquaint themselves with the bloomberg record who might have some questions. >> this is going to be a problem. i was reading "the washington post" account of his treatment of women and wincing the whole time. >> me too.

and reading it going he's done. >> but this is a different political party and maybe a slightly different era. but the jerkitude is a problem. maybe people say in order to fight donald trump you need somebody like that, a jerk with billions of dollars. but he's going to have to explain all of this and put this into some context. and so, yes, if you're from new york, this is old news. but i'm not from new york and it was a little bit -- it was a little bit disconcerting. but jonathan asked the right question. have the rules fundamentally been changed or do they only apply to donald trump? i'm just wincing in anticipation of waiting for someone who defend bloomberg saying it was just locker room talk. because we've seen that hyperpartisanship. the one redeeming grace for him, i guess, is there's no accusation of any sexual misconduct. he's not bragging about things that he did or would do to others, he's just being misogynistic and saying really

distasteful things. >> and also to your point about not being a good retail politician, i think a lot of people will be watching this debate on wednesday. he's not good at debates either and did not face strenuous challenges in new york when he ran for mayor. >> he's kind of prickly, isn't he, and doesn't react well. >> he is going to come under fire from the other candidates who have waited for weeks to have their opportunity to face him. we don't know how he'll respond. >> you've been watching peek 2020. we'll be right back.

we have time for one last word of wisdom. mara.

>> gosh. geez, i would just say -- >> it's a lot of pressure, right? >> let's let the voters decide. i don't want to put my finger on the scale. >> my thanks to mara, charlie and jonathan. most of all thanks to you for watching. that does it for our hour. "mtp daily" with the fabulous katy tur in for chuck todd starts now. it's monday, it is "meet the press daily." i'm katy tur in new york in for chuck todd. we begin with a double dose of angst for establishment democrats. angst over the rise of bernie sanders, whose electability they question and angst over michael bloomberg, whose record they question. the crisis for moderates comes as sanders, fresh off a victory in new hampshire,