that does it for us tonight on "the 11th hour." you can always keep up with us on the msnbc app or listen on sirius xm or our free paddock. -- podcast. on behalf of all my colleagues at the networks of nbc, have a good night. happy to have you here this fine monday evening. it's a super busy news day today. we've got a lot planned for this hour. president obama's national security adviser susan rice is going to be joining us here in just a moment. we reported on friday night, on what was then "the new york times" scoop that u.s. intelligence briefed president trump back in march that the russian government had started paying bounties, they had started paying cash rewards to the taliban and other fighters in afghanistan specifically for killing american soldiers. after that friday night

reporting from "the times" was matched by "the wall street journal" and then "the washington post" and then cnn and then nbc and then the a.p., after we started getting this further reporting about not just the russian government offering these bounties for american soldiers' scalps but actually paying those bounties out, after we started getting reporting first from the a.p. about specific attacks and specific deaths of american troops in afghanistan now being investigated as potentially having been instigated by that russian reward money, after we got that further reporting following "the new york times" friday night scoop, we contacted ambassador susan rice to see if she could come on and talk about this tonight because, i mean, it's one level of bad to realize that russia is doing this, right? that u.s. intelligence has concluded that russia is paying cash money to people for killing u.s. troops. that is very, very bad.

but it's a whole other level of bad to know that the u.s. president has known that russia was doing that for four months and during that time he's chosen to do nothing about it. that is a whole other level of crisis. in fact, during the time that the president has had this information, he's had at least a half dozen apparently super chummy phone calls with the russian president. after those phone calls, he has made a bunch of unilateral offers to russia of policy stuff that russia might want for free, with him asking nothing in return. the president during this time has advocated that russia get back into the g7 when other members of the g7 said, no, over our dead bodies, he canceled the g7. he also moved to take thousands of u.s. troops out of germany, which is a longtime russian priority to get that many u.s. and nato forces out of germany. that apparently he didn't even talk to the pentagon or the state department about in advance. the president just announced he

would be granting that russian wish in exchange for, again, nothing. and he has done these things. he has had these half dozen conversations with putin and made those unilateral offers to russia, to give them things they want, after he reportedly was briefed, after the white house had started convening high-level meetings to discuss the fact that the russian president is paying cash, literally cash dollars for the murder of americans in afghanistan. so ambassador susan rice will be here to talk about that in just a moment. i want to try to get an understanding from somebody who has operated at the highest levels of national american security as to just how radical this news is and how bizarre it is in terms of the president's behavior. since this story started to come out into the open friday night and into this weekend, the president has basically been sort of swinging wildly in response with defenses ranging

everywhere from obama's bad to i gnt de didn't get briefed to maybe it's not true to, oh, maybe i'm just learning about this now. but a half dozen major news organizations have now confirmed the underlying intelligence assessment that russia has been doing this in afghanistan. and the british government have confirmed it too because apparently their troops were targeted in the same way. so regardless of however the president is going to try to explain away the fact that he has done nothing about this before now, there's also the issue now of what he is going to do about it now, now that he definitely knows and all the rest of us do too. i mean honestly, vladimir putin is paying for the murders of american soldiers. does the president of the united states consent to that? sure, vlad. pay bounties for the deaths of americans. i'm the president. i don't mind. that's cool. is there anything you might want

or need from me? i've covered national security stuff for a long time. i wrote a book about civil military relations. i'm fascinated by international politics of this kind. i have never, ever, ever come across a story that has the implications that this one has. of all the things, the terrible things that american presidents have done when it comes to national security to serve their own interests instead, up to and including nixon arguably extending the war in vietnam because he thought it would be better for his election efforts, i mean up to and including that, the implications of the president's loyalties and what he has done here have never been more stark or serious than this story about the president knowing about and ignoring the russian government paying for american deaths. it's astonishing. so we're going to have much more on this to come tonight,

including obama national security adviser susan rice, who you should know is reportedly under consideration as a potential running mate for democratic presidential candidate joe biden. now, as for vice presidents and their work, let's say you're the vice president right now. let's say you are at least nominally in charge of this white house's task force for responding to this catastrophe. say you are mike pence, and you're at least nominally in charge of the federal government's catastrophic response to the coronavirus epidemic. if that were your job right now, you would know that maybe one thing you should not do right now is go to the state of texas on the day that state announced its 16th straight day of record hospitalizations for coronavirus. maybe you would know the one thing you might not do if you were supposed to be helping things get better around coronavirus in this country is that you would not go to that state at that time in order to do an indoor event with 3,000

people crammed inside, where the entertainment was a huge choir of mostly older people, more than 100 of them, all singing their hearts out, all singing their guts out, all singing at the top, middle and bottom of their lungs for the whole long duration of the service without masks on. that's what pence did this weekend. i mean that's like treating everybody in that church to a fire hose of viral shedding. setting up an event like that with 3,000 people inside and the 100-plus person choir all singing with the no masks, i mean when texas is where it's at right in terms of the virus right now, that is messing with texas. i mean that is among the most irresponsible things any leader could do, let alone one who's supposed to be helming the response to the coronavirus epidemic. i just showed the daily case curve for texas a moment ago,

for how bad things are in texas in terms of how quickly they're getting worse. these are the daily case curves right now for arizona on the left and florida on the right. i'm putting those up after talking about texas because arizona and florida are the next two places vice president pence is scheduled to visit on his magic coronavirus for everyone tour. he went to texas this weekend. he's supposed to go to arizona tomorrow and florida later this week. now, both the arizona trip and the florida trip this week had initially planned to include another one of those events, another rally-type campaign slash religious event like the one he just did in dallas with all those big, open mouths singing their guts out, right? tonight the vice president's office has canceled the rally parts of his upcoming visits to arizona and florida. so he will still visit both of these states this week, but he is not going to do this rally-type thing again like he did this weekend in texas.

small mercies. arizona's governor tonight announced that that state will activate a crisis standard of care statewide, which means among other things that non-emergency, nonessential surgeries will be canceled statewide in arizona to try to preserve hospital capacity. arizona's governor also tonight just ordered the shutdown of bars, nightclubs, gyms, movie theaters, water parks. they're all ordered shut down as of tonight. governor doug ducey had reopened the state of arizona precipitously, earlier even than he had said he would. the state's epidemic then took off like a rocket, and so now arizona is having to reclose. reclosing is also happening now in texas and in parts of california and in florida, where case numbers quintupled over the past two weeks. these are all places now where previously open businesses and events are being shut down again because of the disastrous consequences of early reopening.

but i think we should start keeping in mind the idea of reclosing. i mean we've all learned that predictions are folly at any point in this thing, but even so, i think it's sort of a safe bet that we are going to see more reclosings in coming days. again, we're seeing them already. parts of california, arizona, florida, texas. but we're starting to look at similar situations in multiple other states. tonight, for example, oregon's governor warned that cases there are increasing so rapidly right now that the state of oregon is in danger of its hospitals being overwhelmed within the next month. in los angeles county, county health officials there just gave what the "l.a. times" is headlining as a, quote, dire warning. this is from the "l.a. times" tonight. quote, l.a. county's health chief says, quote, we are seeing an increase in transmission. we are seeing more people get sick and go into the hospital. this is very much a change in the trajectory of the epidemic

over the past several days. it is a change for the worse and a cause for concern. this is from the director of the covid demand modeling unit for l.a. county, who says if the rate of transmission in l.a. county stays where it is right now, quote, we are at risk of running out of hospital beds within the next two to three weeks. again, that's the biostatistician who runs the modeling unit for l.a. county. he also chairs the emergency department at harbor-ucla medical center. l.a. county, two to three weeks away from running out of hospital beds? i mean l.a. county is the most populous county in the entire country. as a county, they just announced nearly 3,000 new infections in 24 hours, just for one county. health officials in l.a. are basically freaking out right now about how badly things are getting so much worse. so we're going to take a closer look tonight at some of the places that are ratcheting back down, that are reclosing tonight

after having reopened too early when the epidemic was still too big and too uncontrolled. we're also keeping an eye tonight on the consequences of the abortion rights decision at the supreme court today, where a 5-4 majority of the court struck down a louisiana law that would have closed down all but one last abortion clinic in the whole state of louisiana. one of the things we're watching in the wake of that ruling today, this hasn't received a lot of attention. but today we've been watching the state of missouri. if you are a longtime viewer of this show, you will know that the republican governor and the republican-led state government in missouri has been trying for a very long time to close down what is already the last remaining abortion clinic in the whole state of missouri. we've covered that effort by the republican governor and republican government in missouri to try to close down that clinic. we've covered that pretty intensively over the past year or so. but today, breakthrough. this afternoon after the supreme court's surprise abortion rights ruling this morning, today

missouri's governor signaled that he will abandon his longstanding, months-long efforts to shut down missouri's one last clinic. so at least that's how it looks on the surface right now, but we are watching that closely in missouri because that has been a tricky, tricky situation where they have used all sorts of different elements of state power to try to shut down that last clinic and to make abortion illegal in that state. i also want to show you something that i've been thinking about all day, something that was big enough to make some national news at least when it happened. specifically it made page 14 in the flagship newspaper of new york city, which is 1,000 miles away from where this news event happened back in 1988. this was february 2nd, 1988. on that day, 14 black lawmakers, 14 african-american state legislators from the great state of alabama were arrested at the

alabama state capitol. they were arrested for trespassing. those black lawmakers were arrested when they demonstrated at the state capitol to try to get the state of alabama to remove the confederate battle flag that was still flying up there on top of the alabama state capitol more than a century after the end of the civil war. while those black alabama lawmakers were making the case to take down that flag and showing this he were willing to get arrested in that effort, "the times" reported back in 1988 that across the street from where those black lawmakers were protesting, several hundred supporters of the confederate flag gathered to sing "dixie," to counterprotest while the black lawmakers got arrested. and, again, this was a long way back. i am old. i am 47 and showing every day of it, i know. but this thing i'm talking about here in alabama, it happened just before i turned 15.

i mean it was, for me, almost literally a lifetime ago. but i've been thinking about it today because over the course of my life, over all the years of my life and over all the intervening years since those black alabama state legislators all got arrested, got handcuffed and got hauled off from the state capitol, over all the years of my life americans all across the south have repeatedly and creatively and persistently worked to try to get confederate symbols off the tops of state capitols and off the face of state flags, look at this footage here. in the middle there behind this burning georgia state flag is a woman named stacey abrams. years later, she would go on to become the leader of the democratic party in the georgia state legislature. she'd then become a candidate for georgia governor. she's now a nationally recognized voting rights leader. but at the time these image was taken, the georgia state flag had been more or less consumed

by the battle flag of the confederacy. and it took a decade of work and organizing and demonstrations and argument and even very dramatic moments like this, everything you can think of, but stacey abrams and the activists of georgia and the naacp managed to put enough pressure on georgia officials that they did change that flag. and it was a herky jerky effort. for the first couple of years, georgia sort of tried out a flag that was unusual enough to warrant a caption. look at that. you can see there they basically pieced together a whole bunch of different flags that had all flown over georgia at one time or another. they made it into kind of like a viewmaster strip, including the flag that was dominated by the confederate symbol that had given rise to all these efforts to take down and change that flag in the first place. georgia tried this, right? they put that collection of old flags at the bottom of the new georgia flag along with a caption, right?

georgia's history. yeah, it works as a film strip. it was not going to really work as a flag. they tried that for a couple of years. but then soon enough in 2003, the people of georgia decided they would like to be done with that fisher-price flag, and lawmakers voted in this new flag without the confederate symbol at all. and voters in the state of georgia approved it 3-1. georgia was ready. georgia changed. georgia changed their flag after all that activism, after all of that drama, after all of that organizing. and we of course now live in a time when lots of confederate monuments and symbols are coming down. the fight to do that has been a part of our politics, an active part of our politics for decades, and it took on new life after the racially motivated murders of nine african-american churchgoers five years ago at mother emanuel church in charleston, south carolina. in the immediate aftermath of that massacre in that church, south carolina lawmakers voted

to take down the confederate flag that had been flying on sta statehouse grounds. they had already removed the stars and bars from flying over the capitol dome, but they then took it off of the capitol grounds too. now it would be gone for good. likewise in alabama, where those black lawmakers had been arrested protesting on capitol grounds, after the charleston massacre, in plalabama, by then the confederate flag was gone from the capitol dome, but it was still flying on monuments on the grounds. but after the massacre, they took down the confederate flag on the capitol grounds too. one by one the flags and the monuments to the confederacy have come down, but there was one place where the confederate flag very stubbornly remained, and that was mississippi, the heart of the old confederacy, raising the confederate battle symbol to the heavens day after day, year after year, everywhere the state flag flew. the man you see here is named

aaron henry. he was the president of the naacp in mississippi. aaron henry was part of the national civil rights movement. he worked with dr. martin luther king jr. by 1982, he had won a seat in the mississippi state legislature. in the legislature, he worked insistently on trying to change the state flag. he introduced a bill to change the flag in 1988. that never got a vote. neither did the bills he tried in 1990 or 1992 or 1993. they wouldn't even hear him. not long before he died, representative aaron henry talked about that struggle. >> you see, we have the residue of the confederate flag in the corner of our state flag. and that confederate flag is the banner under which white males marched under to keep my grandma and my grandpa in slavery.

i will keep on trying to get that residue out of the state flag as long as i can have a voice in trying to do it. i just think it's absurd. it's -- anybody who reads the history of the confederate flag know why it's there, know how it came about. >> aaron henry died in 1997. the confederacy outlived his best efforts to remove its symbol from the flag of the state that he called home. a few years after mr. henry's death in 2001, mississippi held a statewide referendum. the state at that time was feeling some of that repeated pressure that had resulted in the flag change in georgia, for example. but in mississippi when the results from that referendum came back, the results were that mississippi voters wanted to keep the flag, 2-1. leave it like it is.

and the confederate flag stayed that way, hitching a ride on a modern-day state flag all of these years. it stayed up there after georgia changed its flag, after south carolina took it down from the capitol, after alabama took it down from the capitol. mississippi would not change. mississippi would not change. mississippi would not change, until it did. it just did. it happened. following the police killing of george floyd, when people turned out all across america, people also turned out all across mississippi in little towns and big towns. they turned out by the thousands in the state alcohcapitol in ja and they were calling for the same type of changes that protesters wanted all across the country. but in mississippi they wanted something more specific to their state. they wanted that flag gone finally, once and for all. and they found this time that they had support. the sec said there shouldn't be any postseason play in mississippi until the flag changed. the ncaa followed suit. the southern baptist convention

said the flag should come down. walmart said it would no longer fly the state flag with that emblem on it. and the polling flipped. 18 months ago, 54% of mississippi voters said the flag should stay. 54% 18 months ago. this month, 55% said change it, change it now. a direct flip. well, over the weekend, the republican-controlled mississippi legislature listened. they extended the legislative session to vote on changing the flag. as they went through the process, support for changing the flag grew. it grew in the house. it grew in the senate. and it passed with a veto-proof majority. the mississippi free press calls it a glorious day for mississippi. and you could hear that assessment from the crowd in the gallery at the capitol when they took the vote. [ applause ] minutes after the final vote, they lowered the old mississippi

state flag while they waited for a new design. at the sight of the flag coming down, the wife of the late medgar evers said, quote, i can't believe it. i'm so emotional. medgar's wings must be clapping. so i can see what happened in mississippi as either astonishing and amazing after all this time or as totally predictable, of course, because of all this time, right? this is a big change in the place that seemed absolutely hardest to change even when other places that were hard to change were willing to go there, mississippi wouldn't. but then they flipped the polling in less than two years. all of that work over all of those years and decades, all of that effort, the lawsuits, the marches, the people who got arrested, the people who brought bills to the floor of the legislature and were told, no, we're not going to hear it let

alone vote on it. they said, forget it. this will not change. we will never change this. it didn't change for all those years until finally yesterday, it did. we are living in a time that feels very grim. i know it can feel hopeless. but if that big a change turns out was ready to happen in mississippi, what else could change right now? what else is possible? ♪ ♪

[ engines revving ] ♪ ♪ it's amazing to see them in the wild like th-- shhh. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. c'mon pizza's here. whoa! is that shaq? this is my new pizza the shaq-a-roni and it's bigger than pizza because for every shaq-a-roni sold, $1 is donated to the papa john's foundation for building community. to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. [grunting noise] i'll take that. woohoo!

30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. ensure max protein. with nutrients to support immune health.

ensure max protein. yeah. this moving thing never gets any easier. well, xfinity makes moving super easy. i can transfer my internet and tv service in about a minute. wow, that is easy. almost as easy as having those guys help you move. we are those guys. that's you? the truck adds 10 pounds. in the arms. -okay... transfer your service online in a few easy steps. now that's simple, easy, awesome. transfer your service in minutes, making moving with xfinity a breeze. visit xfinity.com/moving today.

if you've been wondering whether this burgeoning scandal over russia paying bounties to the taliban to kill american troops in afghanistan, president trump reportedly being briefed on that and taking no action at all against russia for doing this -- if you're wondering whether this still emerging scandal might have any political impact in this election year, well, here is one way to try to game that out. watch. >> in the last year, flag-draped coffins have returned from

afghanist afghanistan. now we know vladimir putin pays a bounty for the murder of american soldiers. donald trump knows too and does nothing. putin pays the taliban cash to slaughter our men and women in uniform, and trump is silent, weak, controlled. instead of condemnation, he insists russia be treated as our equal. instead of retaliation, he invites putin to america. when trump tells you he stands by the troops, he's right -- just not our troops. >> announcer: the lincoln project is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> that ad is from the lincoln project, which is a group of anti-trump republicans, big-name republicans working to defeat president trump in november. and if you think that ad is

maybe a little over the top, you think that's like edgy in terms of how tough it's being on president trump, wait till you see this one from the veterans organization vote vets. >> he shakes his hand, an american dies. they pal around. another roadside attack. putin pays bounties to taliban enemies to kill american soldiers, and not a word from donald trump. intelligence reports on his desk. he says nothing to his russian master. takes no action to protect us. who is the enemy? if you're going to act like a traitor, you don't get to thank us for our service. >> that ad is from vote vets, a veterans group that has hundreds of thousands of members calling the president of the united states a traitor. that's where we are in terms of the political ramifications of this after just one weekend of this story that is still playing

out and still growing. so we'll see what happens in terms of the political ramifications here, and as more members of congress and senators get access to the underlying intelligence about russia's behavior that gave rise to all of this reporting that has created this scandal. but there's also now the question of what should happen here? if this were a normal government with a normal president, what would you expect to happen after this intelligence comes up the chain? why would russia be doing this? what ought to be happening in the white house right now? what could conceivably explain the president has behaved instead? president obama's national security adviser susan rice joins us live here next for the interview. stay with us.

if your adventure... keeps turning into unexpected bathroom trips. you may have overactive bladder, or oab. not again! we're seeing a doctor when we get home.

myrbetriq treats oab symptoms of urgency, frequency, and leakage. it's the first and only oab treatment in its class. myrbetriq may increase blood pressure. tell your doctor right away if you have trouble emptying your bladder or have a weak urine stream. myrbetriq may cause serious allergic reactions, like swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, or trouble breathing. if experienced, stop taking and tell your doctor right away. myrbetriq may interact with other medicines. tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. common side effects include increased blood pressure, common cold or flu symptoms, sinus irritation, dry mouth, urinary tract infection, bladder inflammation, back or joint pain, constipation, dizziness, and headache. looking for a destination that isn't always the bathroom? ask your doctor if myrbetriq is right for you. and visit myrbetriq.com.

it showed up first in "the new york times" late on friday night. russia secretly offered afghan militants bounties to kill u.s.

troops, intelligence says. then within a few hours "the wall street journal" confirmed the same story, followed by cnn and nbc news. there was a "new york times" follow-up with additional information. there was also a follow-up in "the washington post" just yesterday. quote, russian bounties to taliban-linked militants resulted in deaths of u.s. troops according to intelligence assessments. so that's "the post" reporting that russia's plot was apparently successful. americans did die because of this while the president did nothing about it, while he ignored the menu of potential responses prepared for him by his advisers and decided instead that he would just do nothing. he would just let russia go ahead and do it. i mean what on earth are we supposed to do with news this dire, right? with news that has these worst-case scenario implications about the president? joining us now for the interview is susan rice, u.s. ambassador to the united nations and national security adviser in the obama administration. she's the author most recently

of "tough love: my story of the things worth fighting for." ambassador rice, it's nice to see you. thanks very much for making time to be here. >> good to be back with you, rachel. >> first let me just ask you your take on the reporting here, right? russian military intelligence paid bounties to taliban fighters to kill american soldiers in afghanistan. "the washington post" saying that intelligence assessments concluded that those bounties did result -- they were paid. they did result in the deaths of multiple american service members. with all your experience in national security, does this seem plausible to you? >> it seems plausible, rachel. it's mind-blowing that it's come to this. it's a major escalation of russian aggression against the united states. and what's most extraordinary, as you laid out very ably in your introduction, is that the president of the united states

presumably has had access to this information for months, and has done absolutely nothing about it. and, rachel, even if you were to believe the white house, which honestly i don't, that he wasn't informed -- and we can come back to that because that, trust me, as a national security adviser makes no sense to me. but even if he weren't informed, then why hasn't he in the days since he allegedly learned about this expressed his concern, his condemnation of any russian attempts to kill american military personnel? why hasn't he ordered his staff to bring him options for action? why is he not acting like a normal american president and expressing sol dpaidarity with troops and determination to punish our arch adversary for these types of behaviors? >> why do you say that it makes no sense to you that he wouldn't have been informed? the president's denials on this, i should say, have been sort of

all over the map. i think where he's landed as of right now is that he only heard about this yesterday or something even though, you know, we all at least read it in "the new york times" on friday. but the reporting from a half dozen major news sources all citing multiple sources is that the intelligence has been kicking around for months and that it has resulted in high-level meetings being convened at the national security council and the white house to talk about these things. if that reporting is solid -- and it seems quite solid -- why does it make no sense that the president himself never would have heard about it? >> okay. so let me explain this. intelligence comes in. if it's put in the presidents' daily briefing, which is a short but important summary of the most important information that's provided to the president, the vice president, the national security adviser, secretary of state, secretary of defense, on down. everybody in the senior national security team gets this briefing six out of seven days a week.

so even if the president doesn't read his pdb as its own, which apparently he doesn't often do, then surely somebody around him would come in with this information and make sure that he was aware. if i'd been national security adviser and we received this kind of report of an arch adversary trying to kill u.s. forces, the first thing i would do is walk into the oval office and say, mr. president, we have extremely troubling information that the russians are trying to slaughter american forces by paying bounties to the taliban. i will work with the intelligence community to chase this down and try to ensure that our information is solid. i will convene the national security council principles to work up options for you to respond. but please understand how serious this is. and then, rachel, if down the road he decides he wants to call vladimir putin at least six times over the next few weeks, which apparently he did, and

invite him to the g7 over the objections of all of our allies, i would have gone right back in there and said, mr. president, what are you doing? we warned you that we believe russia is up to this effort to kill americans, and still you're going through these ridiculous efforts to hand putin an olive branch. please stop and please be prepared not to reach out but to punish if necessary. you know, the job of the national security adviser, not to mention the director of national intelligence, the secretary of defense, any number of other officials, is to tell the president the hard truths that he may not want to hear and produce a plan to address them. that's the job. if those people are not doing it, then they all should be run out of the white house and the rest of the agencies. and if they did do it, which is what i believe is more likely the case, then again we have evidence of a president utterly unwilling to stand up for american interests and rather

serving vladimir putin's interests. >> let me ask a question that i admit to knowing at the outset is a little bit naive. but i'm trying to think about being mark esper today or being the director of national intelligence now, mr. ratcliffe, being somebody in a position of significant authority in terms of the powers of the u.s. government who is in the loop on this, because this intelligence was briefed. whatever is going on with the president in the oval office, we know that it was briefed up the chain to the point where it was, you know, the subject of national security council meetings, the subject of high-level meetings in the white house, and so those people had to know f. you're mark esper right now and you're responsible for forced protection efforts in theater in places like afghanistan, and you find out this has happened, do you necessarily have to wait for instruction from the president to act on this information? is it possible that our government has done some of the right things that should have

happened in response to information this scary even if the president himself was either unavailable for comment or otherwise compromised in some way and not doing the right thing? >> well, rachel, certainly the secretary of defense should have immediately taken all possible precautions to enhance the force protection of our personnel in afghanistan and to harden us against any such potential taliban attacks sponsored by russia. but in order for us to act against russia in retaliation or in response, whether those responses turn out to be on the low end diplomatic or maybe economic in the middle end, or military ultimately, whether they are overt or covert, that has to be decided by the president of the united states. so there are limits to the authority of a secretary of state or defense to initiate an action against a foreign government without the approval

of the president. >> this is -- i have to say we've covered a lot of sort of flabbergasting things over the course of the donald trump candidacy and presidency. i honestly just as a human being don't know how to process the implications of the president's behavior here. like i find myself kind of reading white house statements, reading quotes from the president hoping that they're true, that he was somehow inexplicably out of the loop or didn't understand it or it was somebody else's fault. i mean i don't know how to put in context the idea that the president would know about an adversary paying money for the scalps of american troops in theater and decide that it was okay with him that there was no reason for any american rebuke and that that adversary should be rewarded. i just don't -- i don't know if you can help, but i don't know what to do with this information. i don't know how to sleep with this in my head. >> it's very hard to digest.

either president trump acted in a fashion that is profoundly disloyal to the united states of america and our men and women in uniform, or he has abdicated his responsibility as commander in chief and is presiding over the most dysfunctional and ineffective national security apparatus in american history that leaves american troops vulnerable to russian attack because any way you slice it, the message that putin has had to receive from all of this is that he can go after americans in afghanistan or anywhere else on the planet with utter impunity. so this is, rachel, one of those jaw-dropping moments, as many as we've had in the course of this administration, that calls into question not just the competence but the loyalty of this president. >> i have one last question for you that i know you're not going

to answer. your name has been talked about as a serious contender for the running mate spot, vice presidential spot on the ticket with joe biden. are you in talks with the biden campaign, and would you tell me if you were? >> rachel, you're right. i'm not going to go there precisely. here's what i'll say. to the extent that it is reported that i am under consideration in a serious way for the vice president slot, let me just say that i'm extremely humbled and honored to be talked about in the context of so many extraordinary women. and all i care about is getting joe biden elected president of the united states so that we again have competent, compassionate, loyal, effective leadership in the white house and flipping the senate so that the democrats control the senate so we can pursue an agenda of healing for this country, one that tries to address the

extraordinary racial and socioeconomic disparities that have, you know, been plain for all to see and that can restore our global leadership. and i will do everything i can, whether it's the modern-day equivalent of licking envelopes or raising money to serve in a capacity that he thinks is appropriate. i'll do anything i can to effect this change for our nation because i don't think there's any higher imperative. >> susan rice, u.s. ambassador to the united nations and national security adviser under president obama. the author most recently of "tough love: my story of the things worth fighting for." ambassador rice, it's fwragreat see you. thanks for making time to be here tonight. >> thanks for having me, rachel. >> much more ahead tonight this monday night. stay with us. is that net carbs or total?...

eh, not enough fiber... chocolate would be good... snacking should be sweet and simple. the delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar. with nutrients to help

support immune health.

in one sense, the decision in the great state of mississippi this weekend to finally, finally bring down the state flag with the confederate emblem on it, in one sense that

decision felt sudden and surprising. but in another sense, it was of course the hard-won result of decades of work. one state lawmaker put it like this this weekend. he said, quote, i thank my colleagues, constituents, and the activists who fought so hard to bring about this historic moment. i thank those who came before us, who with courage and resolve nurtured the civil rights movement that helped bring us to this day. what a beautiful moment of unity, he said. joining us now live is that mississippi lawmaker. his name is jeremy anderson. he's a democratic member of the mississippi statehouse. representative anderson, i really appreciate you making time to be here. thank you so much. >> thank you, rachel. >> so i've been talking tonight a little bit about how this seemed sudden but also this took so long. there's been a decades-long push to try to make this happen in mississippi. why do you think mississippi was the last holdout even as we saw other states remove confederate flags from their state capitols? why did mississippi end up being

last here? >> absolutely, rachel, and that's a great question. you know, mississippi tends to lag behind the rest of the nation in several things. this unfortunately is like those many things. one thing that, you know, i've constantly heard is about protecting heritage and protecting history. and as i'm sure you have also heard, bringing down the flag is about unifying the great state of mississippi. everybody in the state of mississippi -- and it's not to erase history or eradicate history. it is simply what i deem actually as an opportunity to learn from history and to not repeat the past. and so bringing down the flag in a sense, to me, pushes us in a more promising direction of hope, and that's exactly what this past weekend was all about. >> how do you think that it did come together? obviously there's been so much activism and so many efforts to do this, including from members of the chamber where you sit

right now. what was it that made this the right moment? >> yeah, absolutely. and so, you know, we get the credit here in the legislature for pushing the button. but as you mentioned, there were hundreds of thousands of people who went into this very weekend that we call this historic weekend where the legislature voted overwhelmingly to bring down the mississippi state flag. so we had young activists marching down the streets of the capital city and protests around the state to bring down our state flag. we had businesses calling for the flag to come down. and then, you know, i'd also like to give credit to those folks who came before us. in the introduction, you talked about representative henley. that's exactly the type of credit we need to give to those folks who marched long before us, who sat in these seats long before us because they led us to this very historic moment that

we find ourselves in today. >> you said this weekend that taking that confederate emblem off the state flag is now an opportunity that shouldn't be squandered by the state. part of the reason i wanted to talk to you tonight is i wanted to ask you what opportunity you see here in terms of where the state goes next and what to do with this moment. >> let's not make any misunderstanding that our work is done. it's not by a long shot. mississippi, we still see many of our constituents in black and brown communities with the lack of health care where we have failed to expand medicaid here in the state of mississippi. so that's an issue we need to continue to push to bring to the forefront of our conversations. we don't have equitable education in black and brown communities, where our incarceration rate is one of the highest in the nation when it comes to black and brown citizens, voter suppression, the

lack thereof of opportunity for upper mobility in our communities. so when i say we take this opportunity as a time to really grow as a state, what i mean by that is very simple. it's that we don't squander the opportunity by sitting and thinking that we have done our part. as a community, as a black and brown community, nor as a state as a whole. we have so much more to do if we really want to talk about unifying the state of mississippi, and we have the perfect opportunity. this is just a first step towards reuniting and moving the state of mississippi into the future. >> representative, i really appreciate you taking time here. i know this has been a long haul, and this weekend was a lot of drama and a lot of emotion. thanks for helping us understand it. >> thank you, rachel. >> all right. we'll be right back. stay with us.

i wanted more from my copd medicine, that's why i've got the power of 1,2,3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved, once-daily 3 in 1 copd treatment. ♪

with trelegy and the power of 1, 2, 3, i'm breathing better. trelegy works 3 ways to open airways, keep them open, and reduce inflammation for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy. we know times are hard and we're here for you. find support at trelegy.com. leading armies to battle?, we know times are hard and we're here for you. was that your great-aunt, keeping armies alive? drafting the plans. taking the pictures. was it your family members?

who flew. who fixed. who fought. who rose to the occasion. when the world needed them most. (♪) find and honor your ancestors who servered in world war ii. their stories live on at ancestry.

thanks for being with us this monday night. i will see you again this time tomorrow. now it's time for "the last word" with lawrence o'donnell. >> four years ago according to polls military voters voted for donald trump 60% to hillary clinton's 34%. with this reporting that we have this weekend about the possibility that russia is putting a bounty on american troops in afghanistan, one wonders what it might take to shake those numbers of military voters' support for donald trump. this might be the story that,