tv Deadline White House MSNBC July 28, 2020 12:30pm-2:00pm PDT
12:30 pm
magazine would be limited this year. to police. >> if you say that just last month in that same story, you said it would be up to the voters to referee the election, is that right? yes or no? >> i don't remember the context of that, frankly. was i talking about foreign influence. >> you'll have a chance to review it and submit additional testimony if you desire to. some day when we have more time, you'll have to explain to me how a person whose right to vote is denied by a discriminatory practice can referee an election. >> that doesn't -- >> i digress. >> it troubles me you have not been consistent in your approach. as the attorney general, you have stood down on discrimination and allowed states to make it harder to vote but used the doj as a sword when attempts are made to make it easier to vote.
12:31 pm
voting right advocates in south carolina and alabama sought to prevent americans to choose between voting and risking their health to make it easier and safer to complete an absentee ballot during a pandemic but your doj intervened to block that accommodation. mr. barr, did you discuss either of those cases with the president, yes or no? >> no. >> the american people -- >> i don't even -- what two cases are you talking about? >> cases in which -- >> tell me the name of the cases. >> i don't know the name of the cases. >> where were they? >> north carolina and alabama. you'll have a chance to comment after your testimony is done here today. the american people have good reason to believe that you will continue to use your authority to carry out the president's wishes to suppress the vote and there are fears you and the president are laying the foundation to interview with the
12:32 pm
upcoming election to vote by mail because you had false conspiracy theories, mr. barr can you commit you will not interfere with the decisions of state and local authorities to use vote by mail and absentee ballots in the 2020 elections? that's a yes or no question? >> the federal government has very limited ability to get involved but i'm not going to give up whatever ability we have to ensure the integrity of the election. my observation was simply that it would inject some uncertainty into the election process and it would open up the fraud and -- >> mr. barr the president suggested only votes counted on election day should be what matters. meaning if a voter casts a legal ballot on or before election day but that ballot is not counted on election day, it shouldn't count at all so i want to ask
12:33 pm
you again about your commitment to ensuring every vote is counted. if in this upcoming november election, the president asks you to intervene and try to stop states from counting legal ball ballots after election day, will you do the right thing and refuse, yes or no? >> i'll follow the law. >> you won't say no, sir? >> i'll follow the law. >> very disappointing. >> if a state has a law that says it has to be cast on election day, that's the law. >> will you commit to making sure the department of justice does not get involved in a contested election yes or no? >> i will follow the law. >> so disappointing we can't get a clear answer on that. mr. chairman, i'd like to ask unanimous content the item from the guardian magazine an embarrassment, trump's justice department goes quiet on voting rights and william barr's state of emergency, trump's assault on the election integrity forces question what would happen if he
12:34 pm
refused to set the law. >> that on junction -- >> mr. chairman -- >> that objection -- >> a member of the judiciary committee following the law. >> that objection -- >> should be something a member of the judiciary committee knows is pretty darn clear. >> the gentleman will suspend. that objection, the material will be entered into the record. ms. dean is recognized. >> can we take a five minute break mr. chairman? >> no. that's a common courtesy of every witness. >> this is -- >> i waited 45 -- an hour for you this morning. i happen to have lunch. i'd like to take a five minute break. >> mr. attorney general, we're almost finished. we're going to be finished in a few minutes. we can certainly take a break but -- >> you're real classy. real class act. >> after this if you still -- >> no, he wants a break now. >> you want it now, fine. >> you just mentioned rudeness, we're seeing it on display. let's let the attorney general
12:35 pm
have a break. >> the committee will stand in recess now. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> hi, everyone. i'm nick coole wallace. we've been watching a combative house judiciary committee hearing featuring william barr during his first appearance during a congressional committee in more than a year. he faced plenty of cristicismcr. topics that have come up include actions of federal agents in portland, the clearing of lafayette square in washington on june 1st of this year, the firing of former new york u.s. attorney jeffrey berman, the russia investigation, barr's role in the mueller report and the sentencing of president donald trump's long-time friend and political ally roger stone among other topics. republicans focused almost all their questions on the organs of the russia investigation and on going actions by federal law enforcement officers in
12:36 pm
portland, some even asking barr to send them thank you notes. we're also keeping an eye on wilmington, delaware where joe biden is delivering remarks outlining the final plank of his build back better economic agenda. >> take infrastructure for example. in too many under served communities of color, the roads are falling apart. streetlights are out. sidewalks are cracked. school buildings outdated and unsafe. parks aren't safe for the kids to play in or adults to exercise in. there is nowhere you can go to buy fresh food for miles away. air pollution causes childhood asthma that follows them through their adult life and affects their overall health condition. abandoned homes crush property values and diminish the quality of life in the neighborhoods they exist. but not with standing the
12:37 pm
systematic barriers, look at the energy, pride, achievement of communities of color. just imagine if you could truly unleash their full potential, my build back better plan would make sure families in these communities are the ones that benefit from the hundreds of billions of dollars in federal investment, taxpayer dollars that have already have to be invested by administration in purchasing things to rebuild roads, fill those cracks in the sidewalks, instill broad band, close the digital divide. create spaces to live and work and play safely where you can drink clean water, breathe clean air and shop at a healthy grocery store. we can't rebuild the community
12:38 pm
unless we create opportunities for people to build their their own ever cocommunities. this sabis about jobs and digni and pride. i'm confident we can do this. my third is in caregivers who take care of our loved ones and our kids. we truly want to reward this work in the country we have to ease the financial burdens of care the families are carrying and have to elevate. emotionally and financially trying to raise their kids and care for their parents and loved ones and live with a disabilitity and my guess is some of you have been through that with a parent who is and i will can't take care of themselves. you have to make the choice of
12:39 pm
going to work and staying home to take care of them because the cost is incredible. a young child figuring how you pay for it. i was a single parent for five years with a lot of help. i had a good salary making $42,000 a year. without my family i couldn't have done it. they need help. but often they can't afford it. a and. often women of color and immigrants are too often under paid, under valued. but these are things we can do right now to ease the burden. my plan would clear the waiting list that exists now of 800,000 people who are eligible for home and community care for a loved one through medicaid who have signed up but are waiting,
12:40 pm
800,000. my plan would make sure every 3 and 4-year-old child gets access to high quality preschool like students have at this center. i do with title one schools. and low middle income families won't spend more than 7% of their income on child care for children under the age of five. the most hard pressed working families won't have to spend a time because it will be free. my plan would pay and support caregivers that overwhelmingly are women of color. this plan to help workers especially those without college degrees gain new skills and good paying industry like health care and provide a pathway to advance their career for example, home health care worker under this plan will have access to train and need you to become an emt or
12:41 pm
nurse or physician assistant. just put millions of americans to work in new care and early childhood education jobs and free up millions more to rejoin the paid work force. studies indicate at least 2 million additional jobs will be created and more economic growth for their nation. the economy as a whole will grow. we can do this. today i'm laying out a built back better plan advancing racial equity across american econo economy, not just part of the other pillar of build back better but this is in their own right. to start, we create a new small business opportunity fund. it dramatically expands obama biden initiative that generated more than 5 billion and $5 in
12:42 pm
private equity for every one dollar in investment in a small business particularly in hard-pressed areas. we're going to take $30 billion in our made investment i announced and put it into this fund. and allow expanded support from the most effective state to provide venture capital and finance it from a business owner and community in need. we'll also allow us to support community development banks that have a proven record. that 30 billion is estimateed to leverage 150 billion in financing and equity. for more black and brown small businesses and manufacture of color seeking to commercialize new technology for example.
12:43 pm
that helps a manufacturer get started. then private investors we know, notice the promise of that business and invest their private dollars, as well. that helps manufacture scale and growth and make sure that those are the best ideas are not denied the venture capital because of race and zip code. here is why it matters. right now, we're in the midst of the greatest threats to small businesses our country has ever see seen. what is donald trump doing about it? giving big banks the green light to loan millions of dollars they are covered for by the federal government and make millions of dollars in fees by the well off and well connected clients while shutting the door on smaller black and brown businesses without the connections. you remember some of you covering when i first laid out
12:44 pm
what's been done by the congress. we say the president should use the authority he does under the defense production act to force big banks to have to lend to small businesses. they are gaurn teuaranteed the . we bailed them out before. what did they do? do you have a credit card with us? have you established credit with us? do you have a bank account with us? the list goes on. they are denied. the result billions of dollars covid-19 benefit ones who have lawyers and accountants to have better connected businesses jump to the head of the line and the big bnanks accommodate them. black and brown small businesses that need to help most get shutout. in fact, 12%, 12% of black and brown businesses surveyed
12:45 pm
seeking help got the aid they asked for. half of them say they have to close up shop. and they are a major source. our economy can't afford for them to close. their families can't afford for them to close. under my plan, 50% of emergency small business relief would be reserved for the smallest businesses of 50 or fewer employe employers. do you think most people think neighborhood stores have 500 employees in the small business? right down the main streets, so many small towns around american big towns. and see them shuttered. this would help minority owned business give life saving loans
12:46 pm
to grow business is one of many things we have to do to close the racial wealth gap of this nation. expanding black and brown homeownership is another. today american cities, there are a number, where 75% of white americans own their homes. only 25% of black and brown citizens or blacks own their homes. even in the middle close communities of color, the same homes in the white community are often valued significantly less. those black presidents see the wealth accumulate much more slowly. many of you are from families like mine. where did my parents accumulate any ability to borrow or generate any wealth in their home? that's how it got built.
12:47 pm
and that's how our kids get through school. when a house is an asset that builds equity and wealth, the homeownership disparity denies equal community. my housing plan is going to be made -- we have lost the biden speech. we'll try to reconnect there and bring that back to you. the jewelling headlines and images of the future of this country come to mind as we sit here and let it wash over us we're joined by some special guests to help us process all of that. neal has been watching all day. the barr hearings. are our guests ready?
12:48 pm
okay. neal, your thoughts first on what you've heard today from attorney general barr, a mix of defiance, befuddlement and almost vexing denial of some things that at the moment didn't seem to bother him, his role in the roger stone pardon. his role in the clearing of peaceful protesters in lafayette square come to mind. your thoughts. >> nick coole, watching the bid statements you are airing and i was thinking about the contrast between these two, the testimony. biden reminds me of a time where not everything had to be political. you can respect the dignity of either side. that's true of all government officials but particularly true of the justice department and what it's supposed to be. it's supposed to be above that partisan corrosiveness. my first attorney general really kp exempt filified that and so sad watch the justice department. barr was partisan, selective and
12:49 pm
he came off so partisan and the attorney general is really supposed to be above this. barr was going and taking trump's line on coronavirus saying obama was responsible for coronavirus and stuff like that. and his defense of the justice department actions on the census and the violent federalization of policing and the like was really evasive and indeed, he began his statement by talking about the things that trump told him to have conversations about saying like trump doesn't tell me what to do on law enforcement decisions and then when he was asked by a member of congress, has trump talked to you about using federal law enforcement, he says i'm not going to comment on my conversations with the president, they are private. it's so selective. even more selective to me, he's began his statement by saying, you know, well, violence against ca african americans by police, only 8 people this year have been killed who are black and 11
12:50 pm
were white. 1 1 whites as if that excuse things but then when it gets to the abuse there, the sky is falling and there are a couple problems. it very, very selective how he and it came off, really sad day for the justice department. >> the sad day isn't over yet. attorney general barr has resumed his position there fielding questions from more members of the house judiciary committee. let's listen in. >> -- following health guidelines. they're letting americans die needlessly because of political reasons. that is what i will tell them, mr. barr. thank you. and one last question, if i can -- >> in our system -- >> under oath, do you commit to not releasing any report by mr. durham before the november election? >> no. >> you don't commit to that? >> no. >> so you won't go by department of justice policy that --
12:51 pm
>> -- justice department policy -- >> any political investigations before -- >> the time is -- >> we're not going to interfere. i've made it clear i'm not going to tolerate -- >> but under oath you're saying you do not commit to not releasing a report by durham? >> i'm not going to -- any report will be, in my judgment, not one that is covered by the policy and would disrupt the election. >> the time is -- >> you would go against your own department of justice policy, mr. barr? >> why don't you tell me what that policy is? >> do you want me to repeat it for you? >> i know what the policy is -- >> the time of the gentle lady -- >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentle lady -- >> mr. chairman, point of order. point of order, mr. chairman. >> what purpose does the gentleman seek -- >> is it permissable for a member to accuse the sit iting attorney general to be accused of murder? those words need to be struck -- >> to say whatever they isn't
12:52 pm
what about rules of decorum? >> mr. chairman, i seek a clarification. mr. chairman, i just -- >> mr. chairman -- >> was the video played by the previous member, was that a video of things that happened in the united states or in venezuela? i want a clarification. what was the video? >> the gentleman is not stating a recognized point of order. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the administration, against the constitutional text, historical precedent and doj's own memo is trying to exclude undocumented persons from the census, an action that harms american lives and immigrant communities. and american communities. here's an example. many american children are living with an undocumented parent or relative. this change in the census means those children, american children, would receive less money for programs like the national school lunch program, headstart and/or the state children's health insurance
12:53 pm
program. a simple yes or no, please, mr. barr. are you comfortable with the decision that would punish american children and immigrant communities in this way? >> i don't make the policy. i provide legal advice on legal issues. >> okay. >> as both to this issue and the issue of the aca, the question presented to the department is the law. >> reclaiming my time. mr. barr, simple yes or no. does the constitution say that only citizens should be counted in the census? >> no. >> correct. it does not. in fact, the framers of the 14th amendment explicitly confronted this question and it provides that persons in each state be counted. i'll move on. >> well, they wouldn't have confronted it because there were no illegal aliens at the time. >> i'm alarmed by your department's refusal to comply with and implement key supreme court rulings. on june 18th of this year, the supreme court in an opinion authored by chief justice roberts ruled that the trump
12:54 pm
administration's attempt to rescind daca was arbitrary and capricious. and required the administration to process new daca applications. despite the supreme court's ruling, zero daca applications have been processed. that's not the only supreme court decision your administration has ignored. in 2017, your department issued a memo stating that transgender workers were not protected by civil rights laws. the supreme court struck that down, too. >> no, i'm sorry, what we had said -- >> no question for you. excuse me. >> did not extend to -- >> reclaiming my time. in both the daca and transgender decisions, your department has yet to comply. yes or no? will the department implement the supreme court's daca and transgender rulings? >> yes, i think we are. >> the daca ruling? >> yes. >> you are now processing daca applications? >> i think what we're trying to do now is restore the
12:55 pm
administrative process? the dhs put out a rule today -- >> thank you, sir. >> that's what i was told. >> you testified that you discussed the president's re-election campaign with him. does the president tell you what he thinks the winning issues for him would be in his re-election? >> i am not going to discuss my discussions with the president. >> it's a very -- i'm not asking you to divulge anything private or classified. >> i think my discussions with the president are confidential. >> okay. have you -- >> but it shouldn't surprise you in an election year, the toing topic of the election comes up. >> it surprises me the doj has become so politicized. have you and the president ever discussed the fact that anti-immigrant and anti-lgbtq policies excite his base? >> no. >> you've never had that conversation? >> no. >> he's never told you that his anti-immigrant policies, his
12:56 pm
anti-lgbtq policies gin up his base? >> i haven't discussed that with him, but i assume the immigration, you know, i think a lot of his base does care about immigration policy. >> does that motivate some of the work that you do? >> like what work? >> well, for example, the -- your enthusiasm for -- >> that position was taken on the transgender that you are talking about, was taken before i arrived in that litigation, i believe. >> and you can reverse it any day. and my question was whether -- >> it was a legal question as to whether the 64 act extended to transgender. >> i'm running out of time, sir. one more question. you keep telling us you're not aware of the president's tweets. are you aware that your department has stated that the president's tweets are official white house statements? >> no, i wasn't. >> okay. >> i don't pay attention to the tweets unless they're brought to my attention. >> mr. barr, thank you so much for being here today. i want to remind you of something you probably don't remember. but some months ago, you
12:57 pm
actually were outside my office. you were coming out of my neighbor doug collins' office. i tapped you on the shoulder and in a friendly reminder, i handed you a copy of the constitution. and i asked you to please help us defend the constitution. there's nothing more dangerous to our republic than an attorney general who refuses to uphold his oath, refuses to uphold and defend the constitution and swears allegiance to just one person, donald trump. sadly, that's where we are today. >> my loyalty is the constitution. >> i yield back. >> that's why i came into government. >> the lady just accused him of not adhering to his oath of office. let him talk. holy -- she just accused the attorney general of the united states not adhering to his oath. let the gentleman speak. >> even worse. >> the gentle lady yields back. the ranking member asked whether the video shown by the gentle lady from florida took place in the u.s. or in ecuador. >> no, venezuela. >> and that -- the u.s. or
12:58 pm
venezuela. and that, sir, is precisely the point. this concludes this hearing. >> the point was it was venezuela. >> thank the attorney general for participating. without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written records for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. without objection, the hearing is adjourned. >> hi, everyone. we have been watching a combative hearing of the house judiciary committee. attorney general william barr there and the man who took up the role as attorney general william barr's defender, jim jordan. it was an extraordinary day, an extraordinary day of testimony in what is largely viewed as a -- under donald trump. a galling refusal by the top law enforcement official to even pretend to uphold and defend some of the most basic norms,
12:59 pm
most basic freedoms and protections at the heart of the u.s. constitution. ag barr refusing to reject or condemn the use of tear gas used against mostly peaceful protesters. ag barr declining to condemn any of the images of violence of federal forces marshalled against american citizens on the streets of american cities. he hesitated for what seemed like forever before condemning the solicitation of foreign interference in u.s. elections. and he defended his interventions in criminal prosecutions linked to donald trump. feigning ignorance of donald trump's consistent public pressure campaigns for barr and the justice department to cut his friends a break. the attorney general even dodged on trump's suggestion that he may not leave office at all, even if he loses the election in november. william barr apparently not confident enough to say oh, trump would never do that.
1:00 pm
nor independent enough, nor brave enough to admit, under oath, that it would violate the law. today, in william barr's first appearance ever before the house judiciary committee, persistent democrats refusing to be derailed by barr's attempts to filibuster, dodge the facts, feign confusion or temporary hearing loss on their lines of questioning. and barr's repeated attempt to claim ignorance of donald trump's widely reported public statements and tweets. they aggressively pursued the department's role in advancing the president's political objectives while the republicans, we saw a little bit of that there at the end, offer little more than friendly defense of barr, friendly territory on which barr could catch his breath. questions like, would you please pass along our thanks to federal law enforcement officials in portland. the two starkly different visions of the most vexing crises facing our country is where we start today.
1:01 pm
former fbi general counsel andrew weisman is here. also joining our conversation, former senior fbi official and host of the msnbc podcast "the oath," chuck rosenberg is back, donna edwards is here. also with us, former chief spokesman for the justice department, if you couldn't get in front of a television, you didn't need to because matt miller live tweeted all the highlights. matt miller, i start with you. >> you know, nicolle, there are a number of individual answers we can talk about. you highlighted some of them in your introduction. but the biggest takeaway for me was not any one of the trees but more the forest. the view you get of the attorney general and how justice is being administered if you watch that appearance today. this was an attorney general who came off just more than anything else as a completely partisan figure. there are a number of statements he made that were just the kind of statements you'd never expect an attorney general to make. this obsession with antifa which
1:02 pm
is a left wing boogieman you hear about on fox news all the time. statements attacking the obama administration for mishandling the cdc and blaming them for covid. there was this one telling exchange with eric swalwell when swalwell was forcing him to defend his handling of the roger stone sentencing where he just made this off-hand comment, well, there were two systems of justice under the obama administration. you add these up and they were the kind of behavior completely out of character for a representative of the justice department. and i think they tell you more than any one answer what kind of individuals leading doj at this time in our history. >> andrew weisman, i'm coming to you to ask you to pick up on that thread and tell me what impact that has on the men and women of the fbi, including the man who leads the fbi, christopher wray. >> so, i think matt has it
1:03 pm
totally right that you see in today's performance and in the written submission from the attorney general a really surprising partisanship. and as you know, the fbi traditionally is an apolitical institution. in fact, the fbi only has one presidential appointee and everyone else is a career official. so i think it really sends a poor message to not just the people at the fbi but all career people. there are a number of things that the attorney general said today that frankly, i think many people would find incredulous. he backed off saying the white house fully cooperated with the mueller investigation, although he had said that publicly right after the mueller report was given to him. and today when he was questioned about that, under oath, saying, do you -- will you repeat that?
1:04 pm
he said actually all i meant was that they fully cooperated with respect to production of documents. that was just one of the many ways that the attorney general really was doing what matt said which was he was acting as a partisan and not acting as an attorney general for all the people. >> chuck rosenberg, andrew weissmann and matt miller have opened a few doors. i'm going to play some of the pieces of testimony they mentioned. i want to start with your top line observations. as someone who worked in the justice department, who loved the justice department, i spoke to other justice department officials. even some who were in that building in the time of trump and i always make these comparisons to try to explain to my democratic friends just how bad they are. they're so bad that jeff sessions looks like the person who attempted to do this job with the most integrity offer the last four years. do you agree with that?
1:05 pm
>> four words i never thought i'd utter. i miss jeff sessions. it's absolutely stunning. >> me neither. >> here's the thing. the smartest people that i know embrace ambiguity or complexity or nuance. there is a lot of gray in this world. but he doesn't allow any of that to creep into his testimony. and i am always worried about somebody who has no doubt. no doubt about everything. at the very least, nicolle, at the very least you'd have to admit if you were attorney general barr and you were being honest, that the perceptions of what he did are troubling. whether it's the mischaracterization of the mueller report or intervention in the flynn and stone cases or the clearing of lafayette square. but to his way of thinking or at least his way of explaining, there is no ambiguity in his life. everybody else is just flat-out wrong and we see these things as alumni of the department of justice and we're deeply
1:06 pm
troubled by it for a reason. that's because we understand that perception matters a lot. even if he has a legal answer, and he did, to some of the issues, perception matters a lot. he doesn't seem to care at all about it. >> you know, donna edwards, chuck rosenberg, as he often does, pulled out, widened the lens and made the perfect point. we live in a country that is suffering. i think today we crossed a threshold where 150,000 of our fellow americans who were alive six months ago have now lost their lives from the coronavirus pandemic. there are uprisings on the streets of american cities. and as thomas friedman has written, it's donald trump's version of wagging the dogg. and again, to chuck's point, there may be technical legal defenses of pieces of these stories for the president. but there is such an inability,
1:07 pm
such an incapacity, such an unwillingness to speak to anybody living in the country and struggling or suffering or questioning whether this justice department even pretends to believe that its job is to do justice for every american. >> well, i think today what you saw with the attorney general is that he may have served the president of the united states well in his testimony but he did not serve the interest of justice or the american people well at all. and certainly not the career men and women who work at the department of justice. you know, his idea that answering questions from members of congress, he seemed very put out by having to do that. it appeared as though he would take any question and try to nuance his way through it or to filibuster his way. i think that's why he saw so many members of congress seeking
1:08 pm
to reclaim their time because they realize that he would be easy at filibustering five minutes of their time to try to get questions or statements onto the record. and i think that he demonstrated to the american people that he cares less about justice than he does about defending what is both questionable and in some cases patently unconstitutional actions by this administration and this president. >> among those are the president's commutation of roger stone. matt miller, you mentioned it. i want to play you that line of questioning from congressman swalwell. we'll talk about it on the other side. >> at your confirmation hearing, you were asked, do you believe a president could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient's promise to not incriminate them. you said -- >> not to what? >> that would be a crime. you were asked, could a president issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient's
1:09 pm
promise not to incriminate them. you responded, no, that would be a crime. >> yes, i said that. >> you didn't say it would be wrong or unlawful. you said it would be a crime. when you said that, that a president swapping a pardon to silence a witness would be a crime, you were promising the american people that if you saw that you would do something about that. is that right? >> that's right. >> now mr. barr, are you investigating donald trump for commuting the prison sentence of his longtime friend and political adviser roger stone? >> no. >> why not? >> why should i? matt miller? why not? why should i? because it's stunning. >> i thought that was really the most revealing exchange of the entire hearing. first when congressman swalwell asked the attorney general about the sentencing change and asked whether he would intervene in the other sentences and he was unable to provide an example of
1:10 pm
any other sentence he had intervened. and this exchange where he not only wouldn't get into an examination of the underlying facts, some of which were in the mueller report. some of which we've only become known to us recently as they've been unveiled the attorney general has known for over a year now. but then you had this exchange where congressman swalwell read one of the president's tweets to the attorney general where the president talked about roger stone for not flipping on him and testifying against him. and the attorney general said he wasn't aware of the tweet which was, i think, a bizarre statement because that tweet was in the mueller report. it was in one of the most important sections of the mueller report examining the president's conduct and whether he obstructed justice. this goes again to the point we're all make chicago is, if you are anything but a partisan republican, if you watch this hearing and watch the attorney general's answers, it's hard to have faith that he's doing anything like guaranteeing equal justice under the law.
1:11 pm
>> and i think in a race to the bottom, this next moment also stands out as one of the most haunting ones. andrew weissmann, i want to show you what he had to say about election interference. not the 2016 attack on our democracy from russia but the possibility of an attack in 2020. here he is saying it depends on what kind of assistance saufis offered. >> in april of this year, the republican-led senate intelligence committee unanimously found that russia interfered with our elections and attempted to undermine american democracy. correct? >> and i said so, too. >> is it ever appropriate, sir, for the president to solicit or accept foreign assistance in an election? >> depends what kind of assistance. >> is it ever appropriate for the president or presidential candidate to accept or solicit
1:12 pm
foreign assistance of any kind in his or her election? >> no, it's not appropriate. >> okay. sorry you had to struggle with that. >> andrew, i have had -- i've read this three times. i was sure it was transcribed incorrectly and i just want to ask you, i want to take this line by line. the republican-led senate intel committee is cited. barr seems to want a popsicle or lollipop for saying, and i said so, and i agreed with chairman burr. and then he struggles. he's asked this question. is it ever appropriate for the president to solicit or accept foreign interference in an election. his under oath on the record answer is, quote, depends what kind of assistance. what kind of assistance is ever legal from a foreign power in an american election? what is barr trying to normalize there before he got caught and
1:13 pm
given the opportunity to put the toothpaste back in the tube? >> so, first, there is a federal statute that makes it a crime to accept or solicit any assistance. so the congressman had it totally right. so the attorney general's initial statement was just wrong. and you could see what was going on there was that he was caught because he knew what the evidence was with respect to the president and the evidence with respect to the impeachment. and he was trying to duck it. and so that doesn't really speak well for his taking the oath that he was under seriously. he eventually got to what was an obvious answer, which is no. you cannot accept or solicit any foreign assistance. and it goes to sort of a larger point that people have been getting at, which is the
1:14 pm
partisan nature of what the attorney general was up to today. where he talked about the russian hoax, but at the same time, he was willing to say that there clearly is going to be foreign interference in connection with having mail-in voting. but he also had to admit he had zero evidence to support that. so you had enormous dichotomies between the truth and partisan effort on his part to support the president. >> chuck rosenberg, i don't want to move on from this topic just yet because i think if you stitch together and some of this is on us. we cover these as separate beats. donald trump's -- not daily, almost hourly deluge of tweets seeking to delegitimize an election that hasn't happened yet, that he hasn't lost yet. attorney general barr seeming -- seeming to struggle with the question about it depends what
1:15 pm
kind of foreign interference you were talking about before, as andrew just said, cleaning up that answer. what half a dozen calls that donald trump has had with vladimir putin in which not only have the russian bounties put on the heads of american soldiers not come up, but we don't have any sense, any read-out. john bolton writes in his book there rarely if any foreign policy advisers or staffers or even stenos on those calls. what are we to -- with eyes wide open this time, right? it's been four years. what do you think our scenarios are for november? >> well, one thing i wanted to mention, i've learned today i have something in common with the attorney general, which surprised me. i don't read the president's tweets either. if i were in his position, i think i would do the exact same thing. i'd stay far away from it. what is in store for november? it depends if there's a decisive victory, either the republican or democratic side.
1:16 pm
on the republican side, it's easy. the president will accept that. and if it's a decisive victory on the democratic side, he probably has to accept that both legally and politically. but what i worry about is the scenario where it's narrow. or where it takes a very long time to count the votes. more where we end up as in 2000 with a decisive state such as florida where it's difficult to count the vote and we end up in the courts. all of those scenarios play into the president's conspiracy theories. and in terms of having the right person in the right place at the right time, this attorney general seems to care more about pleasing the boss than adhering to his oath. look, bill barr is a smart man. but i fundamentally disagree with how he's approaching the job. and to the point i've tried to make earlier, the fact that he sees no ambiguity or nuance in anything he does or can't understand why critics would be upset with the perception that he has created around his justice department, sort of baffles me.
1:17 pm
and so i worry a lot about november. not that we won't eventually get to the right place as a country. we tend to do that, but that it's going to be ugly potentially for a few months. >> you are all here because you are more optimistic than i am. donna edwards, let me come to you. we did play some of vice president biden's speech before the nation today. i always focus first on what message a candidate is conveying because that was my responsibility when i worked in politics. and you can just tell that -- and i don't see any signs the biden folks are resting on these poll numbers, but in terms of the sort of field on which campaigns are waged, he has moved squarely to economic security to reassuring people that under a joe biden presidency, the economic -- the economy and the economic pain that people feel under the pandemic and under the joblessness and under the games being played right now with
1:18 pm
unemployment insurance will be in better more trusted hands under a joe biden presidency. >> you know, as i was listening to joe biden and then, of course, listening to him over the last month or so, it seems to me that the vice president is really honing in on this economic message but really connecting it with all of the policies that he pulled out. and he got such a wrap during the primary for not really having any policy. and here over this last month he's consolidated that. and he's zoned in on the thing that -- where americans feel the most insecure and where the president has maybe a tiny bit of an edge. and joe biden is zoning in on that. how do we create jobs for the future? how do we build a future that's more inclusive in our economy? and he did that today. >> all right. everyone is staying put. i have a million more questions for each of them.
1:19 pm
1:20 pm
1:22 pm
there is a real discrepancy in how you react as the attorney general, the top cop in this country when white men with swastikas storm a government building with guns. there is no need for the president to, quote, activate you because they are getting the president's personal agenda done. but when black people and people
1:23 pm
of color protest police brutality, systemic racism and the president's very own lack of response to those critical issues, then you forcibly remove them with armed federal officers, pepper bombs because they are considered terrorists by the president. >> one of the most significant and important moments of today's testimony, bill barr facing the house judiciary committee and democrat jayapal on the hypocrisy of an plrgs thadminis that pushed for the liberation of protesters upset about social distancing guidelines and tear gassed black lives matter protesters. and that came after barr insisted there's no systemic racism problem in policing or in this country in general. in an exchange that raised more questions than answers, here's barr on whether trump's crackdown on protesters in democratic-led cities has
1:24 pm
anything at all to do with his re-election in november. >> have you discussed the president's re-election campaign with the president or with any white house official or any surrogate of the president? >> i am not going to get into my discussions with the president. >> have you discussed that topic with him? >> not in relation to this program. >> i didn't ask that. i asked if you discussed -- >> i'm a member of the cabinet and there's an election going on. obviously, the topic comes up. the topic comes up in cabinet meetings and other things. it shouldn't be a surprise that the topic of the election -- >> i didn't say i was surprised. i just asked if you'd done that. so as part of those conversations with the president or his people about the re-election campaign have you ever discussed the current or future deployment of federal law enforcement. >> in connection with what? >> in connection with what you just said. in connection with your discussions with the president or with other people around him of his re-election campaign, have you discussed the current or future deployment of federal
1:25 pm
law enforcement. >> i'm not going to get into my discussions with the president but i've made it clear that i would like to pick the cities based on law enforcement need and based on neutral criteria. >> you can't tell me whether you discussed -- >> i'm not going to discuss what i discussed with the president. >> i'm in the cabinet. of course we talk about the election. i mean, the president can't find a nickname for joe biden yet. what was that, donna edwards? the whole thing? the whole thing. and there are some tells now. eli stokols developed the term trump tells. there's some barr tells. he'll gladly deny something, albeit parsed but if it's true he says i'm not going to talk about that. clearly he's talking to the president about which cities to target ahead of the presidential election. clearly. >> well, and it's actually, if it's -- >> donna, we're going to work on your sound because i want to
1:26 pm
hear your answer to this. matt miller, same question to you. that whole exchange was -- you know, down one column, alarming, scary, frightening. down the other column, bizarre. >> yeah, so oftentimes the most revealing moments are not the questions that the witness answers but the questions that he refuses to answer because you're obviously under oath and if you give an answer, it has to be truthful. when you decline to give an answer, usually it's for a reason. this would have been the easiest question in the world for the attorney general to say i'm not going to discuss my conversations in detail with the president but i can assure you we have never talked about deploying law enforcement resources in any way in connection with his campaign. that would have been an easy statement to make. it's what you'd expect an attorney general to make. the kind of statement you could make while still protecting the confidence of the president and respecting executive privilege which typically witnesses don't want to come up and waive when they have these conversations before congress. the fact that he didn't do that, i thought, was so alarming.
1:27 pm
and, by the way, for him to just say, of course we talk about the campaign in cabinet meetings. you're not supposed to talk about the campaign in government meetings. they're government. they're supposed to be campaign meetings where you talk about how the campaign is going to be conducted. so the statement that -- the one admission he did make was also an admission of a corrupt act by the president. the entire thing, it goes back to the thing we've been saying of all along. the attorney general is supposed to be a nonpartisan figure, the most nonpolitical figure in all of government. more removed from politics than the president or anyone else even in the cabinet. and the attorney general just never is able to give us those assurances. at any time throughout his testimony today. >> and, chuck, to return to the theme you laid out for us at the top, there is an undeniable and i think more than just a perception problem but a substance problem in what the congresswoman laid out that when
1:28 pm
there were protesters carrying long guns in the state capital of michigan, donald trump was tweeting liberate michigan and the attorney general was nowheresville on sending in federal law enforcement when they are in the streets of portland protesting racial inequality and police brutality. they're there, and they're not leaving. >> that's right. one seemed to matter to the attorney general not at all and one seemed to matter to the attorney general quite a lot. i wanted to echo something matt said about tells. because attorney general barr today said i would like to pick cities based on objective criteria. if he was picking cities based on objective criteria he'd just say that's what i'm doing. you can also couple that with the fact that the president said we're going to send law enforcement resources into cities that have democratic mayors. now this is odd for a couple of
1:29 pm
reasons. first, the context. the context is actually quite normal. in federal law enforcement, we work shoulder to shoulder with our state and local counterparts all the time. and task forces around the nation. and when there's an issue, we do surge resources but always at the invitation of the host city or host state. nothing wrong with that. but to say that we are essentially not using objective criteria or we're sending law enforcement resources to cities that have democratic mayors because they can't handle the problem without us is a tell. and it's a disturbing one. and it goes right back to this issue about the perception of what we're doing. we can even take things that are perfectly normal like helping cities with a surge of law enforcement resources because there is an uptick in violent crime and make it look nefari s nefarious. it's just uncanny. >> you know, andrew weissmann, i want to ask you to pick up on
1:30 pm
that. i've asked a lot of the elected officials who have joined us from oregon how unsafe this is. how unstable this is for the human beings on both sides. because this is clearly a -- an operation with political undertones if not clear political motives. but you've got human beings standing there at night in an increasingly fraught situation and it would seem that it's not in the interest of the federal agents to be there either. and it is clearly a danger to the protesters themselves. what do you see sort of turning the corner here, or do you think this is a new normal in trump's america? >> so i don't think it's a new normal. i think it's normal for this administration. i think what you're seeing is somewhat remarkable for a republican administration which is what i would call opportunistic federalism. meaning that we're happy to leave the law enforcement
1:31 pm
operations to the state such as michigan where the protesters are ones we agree with. but when it comes to places like portland, federalism suddenly doesn't hold and we'll send in the troops unilaterally. i think the issue here is, it's just not good law enforcement. of course, legally, it is true that the federal government can step in to defend federal property. but is that really the wise course here? because by all accounts, things were diminishing. and what happens here was an escalation. and i think many people conclude that that escalation was, in fact, something that this administration wanted because it could be politically advantageous. and in law enforcement, you are supposed to be trained to de-escalate. and not to fan flames. and that unfortunately is what
1:32 pm
we're seeing going on. >> de-escalation didn't come up. the use of tear gas did. donna edwards, here's congressman cicilline on tear gassing the peaceful protesters. >> do you think it's ever appropriate to use tear gas on peaceful protesters, yes or no? >> the problem in these things sometimes occur because it's hard to separate people who -- >> mr. barr, my question is very specific. do you think it is ever appropriate to use tear gas on peaceful protesters? >> it is -- >> yes or no? >> it is appropriate to use tear gas when it's indicated to disperse -- >> on peaceful protests? >> to disperse an unlawful assembly and sometimes unfortunately peaceful protesters are affected by that. >> donna? >> just wow. i mean, to have the attorney general of the united states say that people who are exercising their first amendment rights to gather peaceably to petition their government can be tear
1:33 pm
gassed by -- i won't even describe them as law enforcement because they didn't act as law enforcement. but by these federal officers. it is really stunning that the attorney general of the united states has really taken his view of law enforcement to this point. and i think all of us should be frightened at the use of federal resources to come down on peaceful protests. whether those protests take place in washington, d.c., or in seattle, washington, or portland, oregon. >> donna, i want to show you one more piece of sound. this is congressman richmond on diversity or the lack thereof at doj. >> the one thing that you have in common with your two predecessors, both attorney general sessions and attorney general whitaker, is that when you all came here and brought your top staff, you brought no black people. that, sir, is systematic racism.
1:34 pm
that is exactly what john lewis spent his life fighting. and so i would just suggest that actions speak louder than words, and you really should keep the name of the honorable john lewis out of the department of justice's mouth. >> donna edwards? >> yeah, this is where i think when people get frustrated that members of congress make statements instead of asking questions. here is where it's an important statement that was made by cedric richmond that put on the record in front of the american people what this department of justice has done and the fact that they are now doing quote/unquote criminal justice reform. but they have not a single black person in the leadership that was brought into the department of justice. and i think it really, you know, calls into question the attorney general's statement at the
1:35 pm
beginning of the hearing when he said that he didn't believe in or support the idea of systemic racism. that he didn't know that it existed. and clearly cedric richmond demonstrated that in his own department, that is true. >> donna edwards, andrew weissmann, chuck rosenberg, matt miller, there are not any people on this planet who i would have rather spent the hour talking to about this testimony today. thank you for standing by with us. up next, joe biden out today answering questions and making the case against president trump. that's next. (vo) parents have a way of imagining the worst... ...especially when your easily distracted teenager has the car. at subaru, we're taking on distracted driving... ...with sensors that alert you when your eyes are off the road.
1:36 pm
the subaru forester. the safest forester ever. rudy got older and suddenly stopped eating...t, then we found freshpet. now rudy's 13, and going on 3. ♪ 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.
1:37 pm
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.
1:39 pm
when the president decided he had to walk across from the white house to a group of peaceful demonstrators to an episcopal church to hold a bible upside down which i don't know how often he reads, and he used the military to do that, did you ever think you'd see a chairman of the joint chiefs of staff apologizing to the nation for participating in that? did you ever see -- think you'd see four former chiefs of staff talk about how -- it's about dividing the country? that wasn't about being able to walk across and hold up the bible. that wasn't about the church
1:40 pm
burning or being burned. it was about, as his own people said, his own commander, it was about dividing the country. preying on. when you have a president who, in almost the same day the state of mississippi takes the confederate flag off of their flag and he's defending the confederate flag and it's just a matter of heritage. why isn't it still being flown at nascar? this is about division. this is about trying to split the country. >> former vice president joe biden in his hometown of wilmington, delaware, today, not showing a away from attacking donald trump and his politics of division. joining us now, nbc's mike memoli, reporter who asked biden that question. he's been covering the biden campaign for us since the former
1:41 pm
vice president launched his bid. i want to get to your question and the vice president's answer but i want to start with the speech. is it the campaign strategy to really now start to encroach on whatever remains of donald trump's advantage on questions of the economy, who is the best steward of the economy? because that, to me, seems to be the strongest indication, more than just what's going on in the battleground states and who is buying ads where that this is a campaign that feels like it's on offense. >> that's absolutely right, nicolle. what you're seeing over the course of this month is joe biden using the opportunity to talk to the country about how he would govern. the president seems much more interested, clearly, in campaigning at this point and is not able to. he's governing essentially in 140-character increments on twitter. and biden today again, after three previous weeks of going detailed policy plans on the economy from manufacturing, to infrastructure, to the covid care-giving crisis as he put it, talking for another half hour
1:42 pm
today specifically about the issue of the economy as it relates to addressing systemic racism. and i was struck today, it's no secret, right, that a lot of democrats had reservations and hesitations about voting for joe biden in the primary. he wasn't necessarily everyone's first choice but there was a reason a lot of them voted for him. warts and all. and that is -- joe biden is very much comfortable in who he is and in his own skin. and he has an absolute stubborn refusal to fall into any of the political traps that the trump campaign has tried to set for him. so the question he was responding to there, i asked him about the demonstrations we've seen in portland. and the trump campaign's message has really been, what? that if joe biden is elected, those scenes will be played out across the country. and biden's response was anybody who is committing acts of violence should be arrested. that these acts should be punished to the full extent of the law. but he also said the president is deliberately trying to stoke these events and then you heard
1:43 pm
him return to what has been his core message since day one. this is a battle for the soul of america and so this is a former vice president who we may not see much for the next few weeks because he's going to be drilled down on his next big choice, perhaps the most consequential choice about who his vp is. he's still looking at early august for that choice. but he's -- next time we see him, he'll be with his running mate probably and then heading to his convention and the campaign, despite all the questions earlier this summer, firing on all cylinders and responding to a lot of those traps the president has tried to set for him. >> mike memoli, i want to ask you about the question that you posed to him. i have wondered how long it would take someone in the political arena to use secretary mattis' words as a weapon against donald trump because they are -- he is someone who doesn't talk very much. took him many years to talk about the president he served. but invoking the words of
1:44 pm
current and former military figures who worked for donald trump to use against donald trump seems like a message designed to broaden biden's appeal and really play some of trump's own cabinet against him. >> that's right. over the course of the summer, the biden campaign has been laser focused on what's a very important job. we saw what happens when you don't succeed at it in 2016. that's unifying the party fully behind him. he's presented the economic plan moving very much more boldly than a lot of folks believed he would. especially among progressives. he said today that, in fact, if he was elected and is able to enact his agenda he'd go down as the most aggressive president in american history. you also see in those remarks a begin to pivot and to do what joe biden says he has long done, which is try to unite the country. and that's going to involve enlisting much more republicans, much more of those dissatisfied
1:45 pm
independents and disappointed trump voters specifically. that's been part of the economic roll-out as well. speaking to those communities that took a chance to donald trump and the biden campaign's view, he failed to live up to that promise. and so certainly a sign of more the messaging that we're going to see over the next month, especially beyond the convention, nicolle. >> nbc's mike memoli who awakens the former politico in me. i love talking politics with you. thank you for being there for your reporting on the day's biden speech and question and answer session there. i appreciate it. after the break, today's headlines on the coronavirus pandemic, including more disinformation spread by the president. that's next. how about no
1:46 pm
no uh uh, no way come on, no no n-n-n-no-no only discover has no annual fee on any card. these humans, those humans. groovin, and golden. it's about getting more than health insurance and a partner who listens and acts. humana calls it human care. it's talking to a doctor from your couch, or helping you find a cheaper prescription before you ask. it's helping you fix the rugs so you don't fall, and keeping you social, online or off. it's getting to know you, so you can be your healthiest. that's our superpower. that's human care. from humana. book two separate qualifying stays and earn a free night.
1:47 pm
1:48 pm
anif you experience headed, choicbladder leaks,ere. you shouldn't have to sacrifice discretion for protection. try always discreet. the unique design features protective leakguards, which help prevent leaks where they happen most and an absorbent material that turns liquid into gel, for up to 100% leak free protection. the shapewear design provides a close and seamless fit, to ensure total discretion. choose the solution that keeps you drier. try always discreet underwear, with a money back guarantee. brand power. helping you buy better.
1:49 pm
sad news, the united states surpassed 150,000 total coronavirus deaths. and yet, this morning, over half an hour span, donald trump shared 14 tweets defending, among other things, the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat the coronavirus. which has been the opposite has been recommended. one such tweet featuring a group of people in white lab coats calling themselves frontline doctors at what appeared to be a fake news conference. in the video, one person suggests the anti-malaria drug is the cure for the coronavirus while suggesting that masks and shutdowns are not at all necessary. joining our conversation, in the not chief white house
1:50 pm
correspondent peter baker and former baltimore health commissioner dr. leana wen. let's just start with a fact check. donald trump spreading lies, dr. wen, about hydroxychloroquine. spreading fantastical conspiracy theorists, spreading disinformation, at a moment that's crucial not just for our country's health and safety but for his own political health and safety. i guess, i don't even know what to say at this point. >> i also, really don't know why he continues to spread this miss information considering there are now therapies effective in the treatment of covid, dexamethadone reduces in studies done and we also know -- we now have an abundance of evidence that hydroxychloroqu e
1:51 pm
hydroxychloroquine, they solve heart problems, blood, lymph issues. it's very dangerous because we know people listen to donald trump as a trusted messenger and i fear they're going to continue to take these treatment that's are not advised by the fda or by medical experts. >> i think we have anthony fauci on good morning america responding to some of this. let's watch. >> i don't know how to address that. i'm just going to certainly continue doing my job. you know, i don't tweet, i don't even read them so i don't really want to go there. >> to the charge you've been misleading the american public. >> i have not been misleading the american public under any circumstances. >> peter baker, it's a surreal state of affairs on a day we pass 150,000 mark for number of
1:52 pm
americans who before the pandemic was arrived, six months before it arriving here and donald trump's mismanagement of it, the president tweeting about hydroxychloroquine and fauci having to defend himself on "good morning america" saying i do not spread disinformation. where are we? >> well, i think we're right backs where we started where the president would just assume impose his own facts over the reality on the ground to say he wants to be able to pretend this virus is behind us, it is not. last week he resumed his briefings on the coronavirus and mostly stuck to the script he had been given. he advocated wearing masks and stay ago way from pack -- staying away from packed bars and acknowledged things will get worse before they get better, even as he pushes for schools to reopen and the economy to get better, he sounded anyway, like he was taking the spikes in the
1:53 pm
southwest more seriously than the week before, but here we are a week later to embracing conspiracy theories and taking on the most trusted name in public health right now. he needs a dr. fauci to have the credibility once they do have a vaccine to vouch for it because dr. fauci is trusted more than twice as much as president trump according to polls, seemingly counter to president trump's own goals, look he has cdc, fda, nih, he has the best federal scientists out there and instead he trolls internet and twitter looking for conspiracy theories to fit what he wants to be the truth and he then tweets it out again. >> lena, a setback is of the very notion of anyone with unlimit access to same-day tests
1:54 pm
can open. marlins suspended their season, at least temporarily. they had more infections. this is just four or five days after mlb opens. it's just one team but it is case study in the limits of resources and testing. >> that's right. i think it illustrates, that none of us live in a vacuum. we can try to seal ourselves off but frankly if there's coronavirus cases surging then we'll all get infected. i look in relation to the schools there's just no way schools can reopen in states for surging infections for that same reason because there are going to be outbreaks. in the case of the marlins i'm glad they had rapid and widely accessible testing and i would imagine free testing but that's not something available to the rest of us in america and i hope
1:55 pm
we will take this time to really obtain the necessary supplies and have a national strategy around testing and very carefully think about what do we need to do to suppress the level of coronavirus now so we can get these essential businesses and schools up and running again in the fall. >> and peter baker, testing is something that donald trump has been on four or five sides of a two-sided issue. he thinks if you test the numbers will go up. he thinks the only reason the numbers are going up is because of the testing. what's the degree of focus to try to bring the president into something resembling reality around questions and what is now actually a growing lag time in the days that it takes to get a result anywhere in the country, i think, at this point, around testing. >> yeah i think the president has been given numbers by his advisors that sound really impressive, the latest number is
1:56 pm
50 million tests have been administers, we have more than india, more than europe, and all these other places, it's not the number of tests at this point that seem to be the real concern for a lot of people, it's as you point out, it's the lag time getting the results. it takes six to eight days to get the results it's a less meaningful test than if it takes a day or instantly. look at the marlins if those tests came back seven days after they first took it that means they're six or seven games played in between. they get the quicker version, most of us don't. u. can't get a test back in a meaningfully short amount of time it's not a meaningful test unless you're trying to diagnose a sickness you already have. i have a son that would like to go to school, if you are able to send them to school and they got a test every day they got back right away that's one thing, if
1:57 pm
it takes seven days the to get back that's a whole different situation. >> peter baker making the astute and brilliant point that if it had taken 14 days for the results, the marlins might have taken down all of baseball. peter and dr. wen thank you so much for making some time for us today. thank you to all of you for watching, listening, for letting us into your homes during these truly extraordinary times, we're grateful. our coverage continues after this break. continues after this break they get that no two people are alike and customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. almost done. what do you think? i don't see it. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
1:58 pm
and t-mobile doesn't just have a bigger network, but a better one than ever before, with scam protection built into its core. introducing, scamshield, free from t-mobile. get fewer scam calls. period. with t-mobile's supercharged network, you can say goodbye to annoying scam calls, and feel free to answer your phone again. hello
1:59 pm
2:00 pm
94 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
MSNBC WestUploaded by TV Archive on
![](http://athena.archive.org/0.gif?kind=track_js&track_js_case=control&cache_bust=753884745)