good day, i'm andrea mitchell in washington. ahead of a critical speech for joe biden in a critical swing state, michigan, the former vice president will focus on the economy in michigan this afternoon. one sector where president trump continues to poll well, despite the national financial toll from the coronavirus pandemic. there is good polling news, though, for biden in another big state. our new nbc news/marist poll showing biden opening up a

nine-point lead among pennsylvania voters, 53% over 44% for the president. the scranton-born candidate boosted by independents, college-educated voters and the pennsylvania suburbs. this hour, i'll be joined by house speaker nancy pelosi over the deep divide over future coronavirus legislation and the president's claims that a safe and effective vaccine could be distributed before the election even as astrazeneca today announced a pause in their vaccine trials. nbc's mike memoli is in michigan. what will we hear from joe biden today, mike? >> reporter: the strategy is to build back the blue wall. think about what we've seen from joe biden as he's begun to resume in-person travel to battleground states. multiple events in pennsylvania. the trip to wisconsin last week. and today of course the critical state of michigan. and the focus is really on the economy. we saw him lay out that economic plan, mostly in july.

n now what the biden campaign says it wants to do is compare and contrast the policies from both candidates and also the false reality president trump, they say, is presenting to voters. they say it's trump's tax and trade policies that have u.s.ed trade deficits with key trading partners rise. and he'll lay out policy changes as well. the tax code, he wants to add a new 10% tax surcharge to companies that rely on offshoring for their profits. he also wants to create a new 10% tax credit for companies that find ways to bring tax revenue back to this nation. he wants the auto industry to focus on building that next generation of clean cars. >> mike memoli, let me just interrupt you because we have

major breaking news from "the washington post." national political reporter robert costa has new details from veteran correspondent and associate editor bob woodward's latest book entitled "rage." robert, what have you got? >> reporter: well, my colleague phil rucker and i for "the washington post" have read bob woodward's new book, it's called "rage," and it has an enormous amount of information based on more than a dozen interviews bob woodward conducted with president trump from december 2019 through july of 2020. and if you read our article, just posted on washingtonpost.com, we lead with immediately in january of 2020 where robert o'brien, the national security adviser, and matt pottinger, deputy national security adviser, told president trump in late january that the coronavirus threat was the biggest threat, the gravest threat that president trump would ever face in his

presidency. and then a few days later, in early february, president trump speaks with bob woodward on the phone, on the record, and to be clear, "the washington post" through woodward has acquired tapes, tapes of president trump speaking about all of this, these interviews with woodward, and woodward has decided to publish the tapes. in this early february call, february 7, the president says, on the phone to woodward, that the virus is deadly. he repeats, it's deadly. he also says it's airborne, it's spread through the air. so he acknowledges how deep and serious the threat of the coronavirus is in early february, on tape. but it's not until weeks later, of course, as we all know, that the national shutdown of businesses really commences. and so you see through woodward's reporting an awareness on president trump's part of how serious this threat was. and he also says, in another interview in march with bob woodward, that he deliberately played down the threat of the

virus. he said he wanted to avoid a panic. but he said he deliberately played it down. the rest of the book, andrea, i could go on, it's a long book, very detailed, based on interviews about inside the north korea situation, the so-called love letters between kim jong-un and president trump. woodward has copies of what kim jong-un has sent to president trump. there's also a lot of detail in the book about former director of national intelligence dan coats. your famous interview with him, andrea, coats, through different reporting methods of woodward, you really see inside of coats' world, his criticism of president trump, his deep concerns about the country's future, concerns from general mattis and others. i'll leave it there for now. >> let me just ask you to drill down on the key, the key facts which are on tape, where the president was warned that early about the threat of the coronavirus. this was before, if i've got these dates correct, before he

put the flight embargo from china, am i correct? >> reporter: the briefing was in late january, january 28. i don't have the book in front of me. january 28. robert o'brien is telling the president along with matt pottinger that this is so serious. matt pottinger is a former reporter who knows china well. he says to the president that china is not being honest, that this is all very serious. woodward really paints, in the prologue of the book, andrea, a president who is highly aware of the seriousness of the threat of the pandemic. he understood that this was airborne, that this was much worse than the seasonal flu. what woodward does through the course of his reporting is show the president's private comments to woodward that were on the record but private comments at the time, how much the president knew about the virus even while he continued publicly to say

it's not much of a threat, that it will maybe go away, it could disappear. >> and in one of the quotes, i believe woodward quotes the president saying, "you just breathe the air and that's how it's passed," so there's deep reporting here which obviously can then be contrasted, and i'm sure woodward does in his book, with what the president is saying publicly. we should point out contemporaneously he was trying to salvage the china trade deal and trying not to criticize china. he was still praising china before he flipped later on and began cascapegoating china for what he called the china virus, one word, "chinavirus." as you know in your reporting for pbs and "the washington post," take a step back from this breaking news, give us your

assessment of how this could impact the campaign. >> reporter: this is a major development. there are many books written about president trump, and bob woodward is someone who comes in with credibility as a reporter. and he has something that others have not obtained. he has tapes of president trump talking through this moment in his presidency, the pandemic. and it's not -- many parts of the book are deep background, in typical woodward style where the sources are not always clear, he's using unattributed sources to build a story, to talk to people in confidence. but he has the president of the united states on the record, on tape, talking through the pandemic and how he was briefed. and he confronts the president about o'brien's warning, for example, in an interview and the president doesn't deny that that was said. he said, "well, maybe he said something like that." woodward shows how there was alarm inside this white house

about the coronavirus threat even as the president in february, march, was a lot more flippant in his public comments. and the book goes beyond the pandemic. there's a lot of -- many sections in the book where he's talking about race, amid this racial reckoning in the country, and he says to president trump, a man of his own generation, bob woodward says in an interview, "we are white men, we have privilege, we have to deal with that, understand that, understand the experience of black americans." and the president responds, and woodward says he is very casual in what he says, he says, "oh, bob woodward, you're drinking the kool-aid on this, i don't see that at all in that way," in terms of white privilege. and so woodward has these dialogues with president trump talking about race, that coupled with his reporting on the pandemic, on north korea, i'm not someone who makes predictions, i'm a reporter, but the idea of audio entering this

campaign season, aligless than months away from the election, it's significant, to say the least. >> having dealt with bob woodward's reporting for decades now and reported on a lot of his books, i know that he meticulously keeps notes and tapes of his interviews. i've never known him to release the tapes before, not even when the book is under question, his book about bob casey, for example. i've never known him to release his tapes before. this is a moment in history and he -- >> reporter: i'm sorry to interrupt, andrea, but you raise an important point here, i don't know if woodward has ever released tapes in this way of a series of major presidential interviews. it's clear from the reporting, andrea, this was not just a sit-down here and there in the oval office.

president trump called woodward month by month on the phone, brought him into the oval office. they've had numerous conversations. and one thing that stands out in the book, andrea, to your point about bob woodward's reporting style, he makes a conclusion at the end of this book, which is quite notable for people who have followed mr. woodward's career. he says at the end of the dbook that president trump is the wrong man for the job, based on his up-close experience with president trump. he makes an assessment of the president, something that is to say the least something highly unusual for mr. woodward to do. he makes an assessment of the president, and it's something that will draw notice i'm sure in the coming weeks. >> in reading from your story, as you've been talking and i've been speaking at you at the same time, he had another

conversation as recently as june 3, which makes your point that these conversations lasted over months and months, throughout the pandemic, up through june at least, and on the issue of race, two days after the attack, the conflict, i should call it, between demonstrators and federal troops in lafayette square across from the white house, on that day on june 1, on june 3, the president boasted about his law and order stance to woodward, and you quote the president as saying to woodward, "we're going to get ready to send in the military/national guard to some of these poor bastards that don't know what they're doing, these poor radical lefts," trump said. so there was absolutely, you know, bragging about his ability to use force against the protesters. >> reporter: and that comes through throughout the book. there is bragging and inflammatory language, curse words, that are sprinkled

throughout the book, in all of these interviews. president trump comes across as someone who is very comfortable in his power, wants to use power, and 3 1/2, almost 4 years into his presidency talks about the power in blunt terms and he does this repeatedly with bob woodward, particularly when it comes to race relations. that's one of the undercurrents. the pandemic is a major current. it's the pandemic reporting that really stands out when you read the book, because you have a glimpse into how president trump personally perceived and dealt with the pandemic throughout 2020. in that sense it's one of the first real pandemic books that's been written about this trump presidency. but beneath that, you have a president who is really willing to deal with north korea in a way that we haven't seen throughout history. and on race, he's someone who always keeps telling woodward in interview after interview, i'm right to go into these cities. he maligns mayors and governors

and protesters. and he continues to say, i'll push into these cities with my executive force. >> i'm also really struck by excerpts from the so-called love letters that the president referred to as love letters at various times, with kim jung on, who remains an existential threat certainly to his neighbors if not the u.s., given what we don't know about his long range missile capability and other possible use of force, potentially against u.s. troops and u.s. citizens in the region as well. kim welcomed trump's overtures, you write, with over the top prose. he wrote, quote, another historic meeting between myself and your excellency reminiscent of a scene from a fantasy film. and he said his meetings with trump were, quote, a precious memory that underscored how in the, quote, deep and special friendship between us will work as a magical force.

this is pretty extraordinary, with kim also writing, i feel pleased to have formed good ties with such a powerful and pre eminent statesman as your excellency, as the whole world watches with great interest. i hope to relive the honor of that day. talk about flattery or somebody who really understood the psychology of dealing with this particular president. >> reporter: andrea, in the north korea sections of the book, you see president trump defending his own decisions when it comes to engagement with kim jong-un and also trying to win over bob woodward. he keeps saying to woodward throughout the book, i want to show you that i'm a great president, i want a good book out of you. and that's kind of a theme that runs through. and the president brags about meeting with kim jong-un and then he shows woodward these letters.

we've all heard about these letters, "the post" and nbc have all reported about them. woodward sees them for the first time and is able to report the details of the letters. now, we see what kim jong-un has sent to president trump. president trump was not willing to share his own letters to kim jong-un. but you see this language about fantasy films and our precious relationship. and many national security officials we've spoken to have said that kim jong-un was trying to play to the president's own ego, that he knew perhaps this kind of language would help ingratiate him with president trump. and when woodward presses president trump about these letters with kim jong-un, president trump keeps telling woodward, what's the big deal? and he uses some curse words in there. "i just met with him, i'm trying to prevent a war, it's all just about meeting." and these letters continue month after month, and they're flowery in language. and president trump says at one point to woodward, whether it's

kim jong-un or erdogan in turkey or vladimir putin in russia, he likes these tough guys. and he likes to woodward in kind of an aside, explain that to me, bob, explain that to me, i'm not really sure why that is. he says he likes these strong men, these authoritarian leaders, many of them dictators around the world. and the kim jong-un letters show that he wants to have this close personal rapport. he says it's about making peace, but it's something we haven't seen before from a president with this kind of leader. >> and again, from your reading of the book, and your writing in "the washington post" just now, bob costa, with you and of course phil rucker, you write about the dismissive way that he refers to president obama as barack hussein, just the first two names, and then says, i don't think obama's smart, that's a quote to woodward, i

think he's highly overrated and not a good speaker, and that a foreign leader called obama an a-hole. pretty extraordinary. >> reporter: there are a few extraordinary passages in the book, president trump's comments to bob woodward about black political leaders. and another one that really stood out in the book was president trump sitting there with bob woodward and a few trump aides doing an interview, and an aide brings up a video of senator harris and others watching president trump deliver a speech, his state of the union address, and the video, according to woodward, takes a shot of senator harris of california, now joe biden's running mate, and as president trump watches senator harris sit there, still, emotionless, not saying anything, not making a face, just watching the president speak, according to

woodward, just a shot of her watching the president speak, the president ex claims, in front of woodward, see the hate, see the hate, talking about senator harris. woodward in his book is a little bit taken aback, he doesn't see any hate, she's just sitting there, but he points at senator harris and says, see the hate. and when he talks about president obama, it's dismissive, it's everything you said, he uses vulgar terms, and he belittles president obama at every opportunity. >> bob, stand by, and thank you for breaking this for us today, but i'm joined now by house speaker nancy pelosi. i know you haven't seen the book, i haven't seen the book. i'm reading what "the washington post" is writing about this. and of course robert costa and phil rucker, you know that they've read the book and are very familiar with it and have written about it in detail. what's your reaction, madam

speaker? >> it's just more of the same, projection, projection, projection. everything that the president says to belittle somebody else is really a description of himself. whether he's talking about president barack obama, whether he's talking about "see the hate," because he's projecting what he feels himself. very dangerous person. let's get back to the threat to the economy and the good health of the american people. when he understood -- >> let me ask you -- >> what he said about the virus early on, he understood better than he let on, when he was calling it a hoax, his delay, distortion about the -- and denial about the threat is responsible for many of the deaths and infections that we have today, not all of them, but many of them, could have been prevented. >> again, i apologize with the satellite delay, i didn't mean to interrupt you. to expand on that, it's very

clear from this reporting that the president knew and was briefed in detail by late january, january 28, by his national security adviser, his deputy national security adviser matt pottinger, that this was airborne, that it was deadly, that it was dangerous, that it was a threat. and he was at the time downplaying it, denying it. if you just compare what he was saying publicly, to say nothing of what actions he did not take to prepare this country for this deadly pandemic. >> as we go forward, let's just talk about what we should be doing. we should be passing the heroes act, which has within it, thanks to the leadership of frank pallone and many members, a strategic plan to crush the virus. instead of crushing the virus, the president used his time to crush the affordable care act, where he is in court now, trying to crush the preexisting

condition benefit, and the list goes on. we have a plan. we listened to the scientists. it's about testing, testing, testing. tracing, treatment, isolation, mask wearing, sanitation. this is a way to curb the growth of this. when we passed the heroes act on may 15, mitch mcconnell pressed the pause button and said, there's no need to do anything. since then, 5 million people have become infected. over 100,000 people have died. that same denial that the president has. they don't believe in science, and they don't believe in governance to act upon what science says we should do. so again, this is -- >> mitch mcconnell says -- >> -- how we go forward. >> going forward, mitch mcconnell has scheduled a vote for tomorrow on the so-called skinny bill which has some relief in it for people but does not have what you want for state and local governments, it does not have all of the relief that you want for people. it's trillions of dollars short of what you want.

is it better to proceed with a vote? he says he's got the votes. >> you know what, he doesn't have the votes. >> is it better to go forward with some -- >> no, it isn't. thank you so much for that question, because i hear it a lot. and clearly it springs from all the good intentions we all have to help people as soon as we can. it does nothing. there are millions of kids who are food insecure, millions, maybe 14 million in our country, food insecure. he has nothing for that. there are millions of families, victims of evictions because they can't pay the rent. they don't care about that. in terms of attacking this virus which will enable us to open our schools and our economy, that's just not -- that's science and that's not where they're coming from. state and local government, they're our heroes, hence the name, our heroes, in fighting for health care, our health care

workers, our teachers, our teachers, our teachers. our first responders, police and fire. our sanitation, transportation, food workers, who meet the needs of the american people. you cannot send kids to school if you do not have the assistance to state and local governments which pay for over 90% of the education of our children. not to mention what they don't want to do in terms of helping for the strictly coronavirus-centric needs of our schools. so this is not about, we want to negotiate, let's just do a few things and that ought to do it. no. it's about the kitchen table needs of the american people. sending a check without all of the rest of this is a poor excuse for governance. and again, a resistance to the science. so don't be misled by thinking, oh, well, a little bit is better than nothing. no, it isn't. it's a missed opportunity to do

what is right for the american people. and that's why democrats are so unified in this. and democrats and republicans across the country are urging us to stay strong and get the state and local as well as assistance for housing and assistance for food. and if you want me to go into more detail on that, i certainly will. >> no, i know you can. but let me ask you again about the bob woodward book because there are larger issues about the president's leadership. and these are relevant today, as always, because they are his role as commander in chief. bob woodward quotes former defense secretary james mattis as saying to dan coats, the former head of national intelligence, and then secretary of state rex tillerson, that he had prayed at the national cathedral because of what he felt were the president's incapacity to lead as commander in chief and he said there may be time when we have to take

collective action and all resign. so there were early concerns back in 2017 even with the first secretary of state about the president's capacity by jim mattis and by dan coats as quoted in this book. >> that's very interesting, especially in light of the fact that the republicans in congress do nothing, do nothing to temper the bad policy that springs from that person. you would think that the family or the republicans would have some kind of intervention. clearly the behavior of the president is not on the level. but the fact is, i'm very pleased that astrazeneca has stopped their trial because they saw a problem that needs to be investigated. i'm so proud that the pharmaceutical companies have said they won't market or promote a vaccine unless it is

properly approved by the independent scientific advisory committees set up for such a thing. i'm glad they're saying that, because i have concerns about what the president might want to do to the timing and politicizing of the research that is there. so when we talk about his incapacity and whatever his mental state is, we have to be careful about how that impacts the health and wellbeing of the american people. and i feel very sad that the republicans in congress -- and i don't paint everybody with the same brush, certainly not republicans in the country, many of them, with how willing he is to squander the health and wellbeing, the economic security, the food security, the housing security of america's families. for what? for what? because he doesn't want to face the fact that his denial, his distortion, his delay, has cost so much harm to this country,

health-wise and economically, because he just couldn't face that reality. something is wrong there. it's not on the level. and the republicans who condone it are accomplices to it. and as i've said, they're going to have doggie doo on their shoes for the rest of their lives when their children and grandchildren said, what did you do at that time, when they were in denial about science in terms of the virus, their denial of science about the climate issue, when they would not pay attention to children's needs and denied scientific advice as to how it would be safe for children to go to school. 500,000 children with the infection. 500,000 children. so i'm all about the children, as you know. the lioness. be ready for a big fight. everything mr. costa said, that was said about -- i mean, i'm one of the only members of

congress still here who has been to pyongyang, to north korea, actually into north korea, not to the border. i have seen the cruelty with which the people there are treated. this was when his father, kim jong-il, was the president. this is a brutal particular tdi. and for the president to speak in those terms about him, "excellency." thug, mr. president, thug. if you don't recognize that, it's a projection of your own lack of standards. >> madam speaker, i also have been to pyongyang, i know of what you speak, back when kim jong-il was the leader back in 2000 and again in 2006. and the other major point i wanted to make before i let you go is about the military,

because woodward in "the washington post" rewrite of this, quotes from the book, saying that the loathing of donald trump for his military advisers was mutual. this is after talking about how coats and mattis were so critical of him privately. the loathing was mutual, quote, of the president, not to mention my f-ing generals are a punch of pussies, they care more about alliances than they do about my trade deals, according to woodward. he goes on to talk about jared kushner, the son-in-law and senior adviser, quoted by woodward as saying, the most dangerous people around the president are overconfident idiots which woodward interpreted to mean mattis, tillerson, and then former national economic adviser gary cohn. so there is a continual thread throughout this of conflict

between the president's national security advisers and the president, to say nothing of the military, and of course most recently we've seen and heard what has been written about the president's private comments about the military, as well as his public comments, to say nothing of john mccain. >> you know, i have referenced our conversation in normandy last year, when i brought plane loads of democrats and republicans to observe the 75th anniversary of the normandy invasion. we went there to praise and thank our veterans who are still come, a smaller number each year, but nonetheless, still courageously coming to normandy with their families. and you asked me in front of the graves overlooking the water if i would say something about the president. i said i never criticize the president of the united states overseas. later, fox news interviewed the president in a similar location, in front of the graves.

and he made political attacks on some of us who were there visiting our veterans, our survivors who are still with us from the invasion of normandy. so again, that he would be political in front of the cemetery of our soldiers who gave -- made the ultimate sacrifice at normandy should have given people a clue of the lack of respect that he had for our service members. now he's saying, well, the soldiers like me but the higher ups don't. well, you know, we have eight weeks and a couple of days until we'll be able to count the votes in the election. it's so sad that an election should have to be so crucial, that we should be even having a discussion. this should be the most unifying thing we do, to praise our men and women in uniform and our

veterans and their families who make such a sacrifice for our country. it shouldn't be someplace where there's any division in any of it. i think for me, the defining moment was when he criticized john mccain. i just couldn't -- i thought, how could anybody elect somebody who is criticizing the sacrifice and the patriotism of john mccain? john mccain, being on the other side of the aisle from me, we've had our differences, we've had our agreements. but we all agree that he was a super patriot for our country, and the kind of words he said about president george herbert walker bush, when he too was so brave and courageous as a very young man in the war. so it is -- in world war ii. again, something is not right here. but what's really wrong is that the republicans will not address it. they will not address it. maybe they too are antiscience.

maybe they too are antigovernan antigovernance. maybe they're just afraid, why any of us thinks our job is more important, our being reelected is more important than doing what's right for the american people, no matter what president we might offend, is really stunning. but as i say, we don't agonize, we organize. we want to look forward to see how we can work together to crush this virus, so we can open schools and the economy safely, so that we can meet the needs of the american people and really have the right to say thank you to our heroes, because we're not only saying thank you, we're allocating the resources so that they, as they risk their lives to save lives, are not losing their jobs because so many members of the united states senate republican conference do not want to spend one more dollar in the fight against this virus and to pull us out of this recession. >> madam speaker, i well

remember that day, june 6, 2019, when, try as i might, you refused to say anything at all that was critical of the president in front of the american cemetery, which is hallowed ground. i know you have to go but one more thing, this is courtesy of cnn, this is tape of a conversation that i believe took place on march 19, where the president can be heard saying that he always wanted to play down the threat of the coronavirus when he was first warned about it initially on january 28th by his national security adviser. let me play this very brief segment for you and get your reaction. >> i wanted to always play it down. i still like playing it down. >> yes, sir. >> because i don't want to create a panic. >> so the president's explanation is that he was trying to play it down because he did not want people to panic. your comment about that? that was taped on march 19. >> the fact is that the coronavirus and the threat that

it was is a reality. a president should face that reality. the way to avoid a panic is to show leadership, to say this is what the challenge is, we're going to use the best scientific evidence that is available to us to contain it, we are going to make sure that we can stop the spread of it. that is what stops a panic, not ignoring it and then finding out that a hundred -- and then later saying, well, the a couple of hundred thousand people, that goes with it, that's not that many compared to how many die of the flu in a few years or whatever. so i think that what he said there connotes two things. one, his weakness. he didn't know how to cope with a challenge to our country.

secondly, his disdain and denial for science, which has the answers. we could have contained this early on. but bigger than all of that, bigger than all of that, was his total disregard for the impact on individual families in our country. imagine losing a loved one to a virus that didn't even -- they didn't even know about seven or eight months ago, the end of last year. and to have a president use that as an excuse. what he was actually saying is, i don't want anybody to think anything like this happened on my watch, so i'm not going to call any more attention to it, it's a hoax, we expect a miracle, it's going to go away magically. something's very wrong with this. and it can be captured in the statement that the president made about that. i don't know -- i mean, again, i just don't know why there isn't

some kind of intervention by those who are surrounding him professionally, or any goodwill on the part of his own family, to say something is very wrong here, we have to have an intervention for the good of our father, donald trump, and for the good of our country. but it's all the more reason why we have to remove every obstacle to participation in the vote, because as you see, they're carrying this crusade, this mission that they have, that identifies with dictators and thugs, and again, as i've said over and over again, putin, his friend, he's putin's puppet, all roads lead to putin. what does putin have on him personally, politically, professionally, financially? we'll find out when we see his tax returns. but this is really sad. it makes us wonder how we ever would be so competitive in races

between democrats and republicans who just had a difference of opinion as to the role of government when we see how distorted the presidency can be. i'm really excited about biden, i think he's going to be a great president. i never saw any hatred coming from kamala harris and neither did the president. but he's always projecting his negative attitudes onto other people. but it won't be long, in eight weeks we'll be celebrating the election of joe biden and kamala harris, a democratic senate, ef representatives. a cornerstone of what we do is to have bipartisan transparency in what we do so the public can make its own judgment about us, and when we do so, to do so as a result of a free and fair election, not to be frightened

by anything that he says. again, we don't agonize, we organize. and that's what we intend to do. >> nancy pelosi, speaker of the house, thank you very much for being with us today. >> thank you. >> with all this breaking news. thanks for your indulgence. dr. zeke emanuel, former obama white house health adviser, the author of "which country has the world's best health care." zeke, a lot of breaking news, but just to recap, as early as january 28th, the president was told by his national security advise and her his deputy national security adviser that this was a deadly virus that was coming from china, and that it was airborne. >> yeah, and it's obvious, you know, you asked the question, as they did during nixon, what did the president know and when did he know it. and he clearly knew in january that this was going to be a major potential catastrophe for the country as well as the

world. and rather than step up and take control, the way a great leader like winston churchill would do, or franklin roosevelt, he decided to play ostrich and bury his head, and the american public, in the sand, and pretend that this huge threat didn't exist. and that is really disheartening and, you know, now we all suspected it because of the peter navarro memo that he received, and now it's been confirmed by tapes and interviews with the president himself, and him and the president even saying he wanted to downplay the real threat. that's not what leaders do like churchill and roosevelt. they confront reality and they address the problem and make sure that they can bring to bear the full force of the federal government and american greatness to this. keeping america great is not ignoring catastrophic threats. >> i believe it was on march 6

that the president was at the cdc and said it was going to disappear. so with the timeline of january 28, what one official at the cdc was trying to say on january 28, 29, and february 1, and got forced out of the mix, so one wonders also about the pressure on the public health experts, dr. fauci is quoted in the "washington post" writeups, telling the president to his face, after one public briefing back in the oval office, that what he was saying publicly did not match what they knew to be the facts. >> yeah, and i think this goes back to, you know, the modus operandi of this president, which is to deny the facts, pretend they don't exist, and suggest to people that they can go around and have life as normal in the face of a huge infectious threat and potential catastrophe. so the idea that he didn't know,

the idea that he wasn't told, you know, he was lying to the american public. and he was deceiving them about the seriousness of that threat. that is not leadership. and that's not a leader we need when we're facing one of the most catastrophic threats certainly in decades and decades. and we do need a leader who can look at the facts, marshal the federal government's tremendous resources, and lead the country. and we know this can be done. how do we know it can be done? we can look at other countries that face similar -- the covid crisis, you know, italy had a terrible outbreak. lots of people, early on in march. but by the end of may, very, very little transmission, much fewer deaths. in fact if we had followed italy's lead, tens of thousands of americans would be alive today that unfortunately died. that's what burying your head in

the sand gets you in the face of scientific facts. and the president can no longer claim he didn't know, no one told him. >> also bringing this up to today, let me ask you about what you think is the significance of astrazeneca halting their phase iii trials because of a case of extreme adverse reactions, one case, we understand, in the uk, not in the u.s. >> yeah, it appears to be one case of myelitis, which affects the nerve sheathing. this is obviously what's a very severe adverse reaction. and the important question is, is this caused by the vaccine or not. if it's caused by the vaccine, that will probably halt the trial for safety reasons, i mean, permanently halt the trial for safety reasons.

and so that is a very urgent determination. i think, andrea, it reemphasizes that we don't know everything about these vaccines. and that's the reason we conduct these randomized controlled trials. i would remind people that this platform is not only part of the astrazeneca platform, that it's being used by other -- a similar approach is being used by other drug companies. so looking at the safety is going to be extremely important. we all desperately want that vaccine so we can get back to normalcy. but we need a safe vaccine. and taking this adverse event seriously, getting to the bottom of it, making sure, discovering whether it's a result of the covid vaccine, is going to be absolutely critical to reassuring the public that we're taking every potential adverse event seriously. and i think it could be a very serious setback for the

development of the vaccine, unfortunately. >> let me just very briefly ask you whether you know if the others that use the same platform, which i believe involves the d in thna, changin dna of the virus, are they among the top three that the u.s. has viewed as -- moderna, for instance, viewed as the biggest bets? >> it's not the same as the moderna vaccine. it's different. but it has similar attributes to some of the other large drug company vaccines. and i believe, if i'm not mistaken, also the russian potential. >> and myelitis, if it's the myelin sheath, that's one of the signature symptoms of multiple

sc sclerosis, if i'm correct. >> you're almost a doctor, andrea. it's inflammation of the nerves, and yes, a very serious side effect. >> i want to also play one of the other sound bites that we have now, where the president is talking about the experience of it being airborne. i think this is from february 7. >> it goes through air, bob. that's always tougher than the touch. you know, the touch, you don't have to touch things, right? but the air, you just breathe the air, that's how it's passed. and so that's a very tricky one. that's a very delicate one. it's also more deadly than your -- you know, even your strenuous flus. >> so that indicates absolute knowledge by the president, it wasn't just that he was briefed on january 28, he took it in and he was repeating it back to bob woodward. >> i think you're absolutely

right. he absorbed the two pieces of relevant information there, that eight airbor it's airborne, and it's more deadly than the common flu. he repeated them. he clearly knew. again, when we ask the richard nixon famous question, what did the president know and when did he know it. early in february, he knew this was a respiratory virus that could be passed in the air. and he knew it was more deadly than flu. he had the information he needed to mobilize the country in february 7. and no evidence he mobilized the country, no evidence he took it sufficiently seriously. and that's exactly how you get into trouble like we've had today, almost 190,000 deaths in america, well more than 6.3 million people who have confirmed cases. it didn't have to be this way if the president had taken decisive action in february. and he failed.

>> dr. zeke emanuel, thank you very much, thanks for joining us on this day of breaking news. and joining us now, "washington post" white house reporter ashley parker. former republican congressman david jolly. back with us from "the washington post," robert costa. ashley, let me ask you about your reporting about the rose garden. thanks to zeke emanuel for expanding on what we've learned from robert costa and "the washington post." there's new information as well in "the washington post" today, ashley, about the rose garden. this was confirmed by nbc news. you've got a lot of details here about the damage to the so you thought lawn and the rose garden from the improvements, the drainage that was caused by redoing the rose garden, essentially requiring turf to be laid down, and all of the structures that were put in as well in the south lawn.

that is another case what have we're learning today about this white house, especially what we're learning about bob woodward and his new reporting, ashley. >> yeah, about the south lawn and the rose garden specifically, that's exactly right. after the after the republican national convention held there, you have the picture up right now, they had to bring in lighting. they had to build a stage. there were chairs. there were about 1500 people. keep in mind this is coming just days really after melania trump rolled out a new rose garden and now we're finding out because of the damage incurred during that event, they're having to do construction and repairs. the trump campaign is paying for it, but the one thing i would note is the white house stressed it's not uncommon after something like a big event like the easter egg roll or the 4th of july to have to do some repairs but this was an overtly political event for the president's personal gain in the people's house which now so damged it that we're having to

do repairs just days and weeks after already repairing and rolling out a new rose garden. >> and bob, we heard the speaker reacting to your reporting from what is in the woodward book. she, saying that so many lives have been affected, lost as well as other lives affected. the economy, the disaster that we've seen. and from the clips that we've heard now from february 7th from march as well of the president really acknowledging that he took in this briefing, the january 28th briefing from his national securitied a vie vy ad. and his department national national security adviser knew it was deadly and airborne. >> this is dramatic because of the details from a book, but when i sat there with my colleague phil rutger, you step

back as a reporter and see it's a serious piece of reporting that details how president trump from late january, the january 28th briefing through march up until when many of the states in this country began to shut down, he was well aware of what the virus meant, how it was spreading, what was on the horizon. he had full information from his national security team that this was not something that was normal. matthew pottinger, the deputy national security adviser compared this to the 1918 flu pandemic that killed more than 50 million people worldwide. he had all this information. and then as we were sitting there we kept looking at what president trump was saying in early february, mid february, late february, early march. it was so different than what he was telling bob woodward behind the scenes in phone calls and in interviews. in that way this book is

something that documents history as it happens. a president processing information and making choices about what to say to a reporter, bob woodward versus another choice he made and what to tell the american people. >> and david, the speaker spoke to me about the complicity of republicans who are aware of the president and have not to this day broken with them. one of the excerpts in the washington post where he talks about kim jong-un and other dictators as well, but he talks about kim jong-un, and he boasts to woodward that kim jong-un, quote, tells me everything including a graphic account of kim having his uncle killed. how could a president of the united states brag about sitting down with a tick day or the, a thug like kim jong-un and boast about his bragging about murder? >> history will judge donald trump harshly as it will judge the republicans who elevated and

celebrated him as well. andrea, this is reporting from which donald trump may not recover politically. we've wondered that in the last three and a half years, but it's now 60 days out from an election. mail ballots hit in two or three weeks and given the recordings and the authenticity that backs up this reporting, it may be a story line he cannot recover from. we know now that he knew of the deadly threat of the virus. he played it out. by the end of february he was saying there are 15 cases, it will go to zero. a week later he was confessing to bob woodward that he knew of the gravity of this but his strategy was to play it down. he told woodward he was going to continue to do it. dr. anthony fauci calls his administration rutterness. and on matters of national security which used to be a core component of republicans, donald

trump's former director of national intelligence says that he is now convinced that putin must have something on donald trump. nothing else explains donald trump's behavior, and as we know from your reporting jim mattis calls him unfit and dangerous. this is a portrait of a president who is callous on matters of public health and protecting his own people and also dangerous to our national security. and that comes out 60 days from an election. >> speaking of the timeline. mike is in michigan where joe biden is about to speak in the next hour. obviously they have a lot to do. they have focussed on the co-vid virus and the pandemic. they have not sold the american people according to our polling that the economy is directly an outgrowth of his handling of coronavirus. how are they going to address this, do you think? >> we started the hour talking about how the biden campaign was

hoping to make end roads into the economic advantage that the president continues to have in national polling. i would expect to hear from the former vice president in the next half hour or so. we expect the remarks to begin leaning into the new revelation, especially on the president's response to the warnings he was getting at a very early stage about how deadly a crisis this coronavirus can be. we've heard biden say consistently that we can't reopen the economy until you get ahold of the crisis and biden is going to lean into i think the idea of he squandered an opportunity to take action early, andrea. >> well, we're going to have to leave it there. we'll have a lot more online. chuck todd is up next. our thanks to bob costa and everyone else. chuck todd is up next with mtp daily right here on msnbc.

if it's wednesday, the president admitted on tape that he knew the coronavirus was far more dangerous than the flu. but he misled the public anyway. that's one in a series of new revelations from a new book by bob woodward base on the multiple interviews of the president. we're getting our first look and listen to it right now. the audio are the resaeceiptrec. joe biden is about to speak i y michigan. he's up big