tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC July 15, 2017 2:00am-3:00am PDT
us. have a good weekend. good night from nbc news headquarters in new york. headquarters in new york. le. the plot thickens. let's play "hardball." and good evening, i'm steve kornacki in for chris matthews tonight. new revelations about the trump campaign's meeting with a russian lawyer last sum ver again raised doubts of the evolving account of donald trump jr. who attended that meeting on the promise of kremlin-source dirt on hillary clinton. this morning, nbc news reported that there was another, a previously undisclosed person also in the room that day, russian-american lobbyist, a
former soviet counter-intelligence officer who is suspected by some u.s. officials of having ongoing ties to russian intelligence. he denies any current ties to russian spy agencies. however, senator chuck grassley and a republican noted in a let tore the department of homeland security back if april quote that mr. rinat akhmetshin apparently has ties to russian intelligence. this brings the total number of ar tis pants to at least six t. sixth person there was a translator this report comes after donald trump jr. said on tuesday he would come clean and there was nothing more to say. >> i'm more than happy to be transparent and cooperate with everyone. >> as far as you know, as far as this incident is concerned. this is all of it? >> this is everything. there is everything. >> trump jr.'s lawyers said he
quote knew nothing about the man's background at the time of the meeting. he told yahoo news he attended the meeting ought trump tower without any security check. quote, no one asks us for i dis, we literally walked in. joining me is ken delaney, and a former senior adviser at the state department. ken, let me start with you. former soviet counter-intelligence official suspected of having ongoing ties to russian intelligence. this guy he mentionled, what exactly can you tell us about him and the issue there being suspected connections to russian intelligence in the presence tense, flesh thattous a little for us, if you will. >> i will, steve, it's important to note we don't know the evidence on. that as you pointed out there senator grassley's office has made those allegations, we have no idea what they're based on.
i think the most important thing to know about him he is a classic operation operator, he is russian born, he had came to the u.s., became a u.s. citizen, he's been an operator in the shadows in walk for years, lobbying for various causes, some of which have to do with russian-americans and russianles, on occasion he has been on the other side of the putin government. you know, he's an interesting guy who tends to do kind of political intelligence work, in corporate intelligence work, generally in the shadows, now, of course, he's exposed to the public view in this meeting. >> just in terms of what he is there what his role is there, he is a lobbyist, a former counter-intelligence to the soviet union, back when there was a soviet union, now a lobbyist. she there at the invitation of this russian lawyer? >> yeah. i mean, there is sort of two stories here. there is the story that rinat the lobbyist and the lawyer are telling the trump team that this
meeting was about these magnitsky act sanctions, they came to meet with the trump folks to lobby against these sanctions and give fem them maybe information about contributions to the dnct. trump folks said this has nothing to do with the campaign. this is a nothing burg. that's their story. >> that doesn't square from the e-mails of the family that had been involved in the miss universe pageant, had a deal to do in moscow, it didn't come to fruition. they were promising derogatory information. that's what this meeting is supposed to be about. there is a huge disconnect between that and what they say happened in the meeting about this pedantick magnitsky act which is very hard to un. you know, intelligence officials raise this possibly even folks that went to the meeting to the it was about these sanctions and the magnitsky act. it's a way to figure out whether
they can getting a is es to the trump campaign. the answer is, yes, they were willing to take a meeting based on a promise of help. >> michael, among all of the other details you have here, you talked to this guy i mentioned is this, he showed up at trump tower. this is a guy, a former soviet counter intel official. he attracted the suspicion of construct grassley in washington. he showed up at the time. he was ushered in without showing i.d. >> i thought that was pretty astonishing. i caught him by cell phone. he was in a french southwest coast when i did this afternoon and, you know, i wanted to zero in on this question, because, you know, how did he get into this meeting? why was he there? his account is he was dressed in a tee-shirt and jeans and happened to be having hundred wind chill natalya the lawyer whom he worked with lobbying against the magnitsky act.
she happens to mention, oh, i have this meeting this afternoon at trump tower, why don't you come along? i would have thought to get cleared into trump tower to go see the campaign manager of the campaign, the son of the candidate, you would have -- there would have been a record of who was going up to trump tower, somebody would have had to have cleared you in. at least according to his account, rinat's account. nothing of the kind took place. they just strolled back in. strolled in, nobody asked them for any i.d. whatsoever and there he is sitting with the highest levels of the trump campaign. now, you know, this might be exculpatory for the trump campaign. it would explain how they didn't know he was there. because there was no record of him being there, if this account is true. on the other hand, if one has a more sinister view of events or thinks this was a part of an intelligence operation, it is a
way by which people who might have other agendas could gain access to the highest levels of a presidential campaign? yeah, talk a little bit more about that, one of the defenses we've seen with this, just in general, when it comes to any of these stories like this, with trump folks and trump world, it always seems to fall back, well, these are political amateurs, they're not used to running sophisticated national campaigns. they're not used to running a government for that matter. so things will happen we aren't going to see before. i haven't we heard them offer that specific defense. what would you say, though, if the defense you end up hearing here is, well, yeah, i didn't know any better. we took the meeting. sure, she showed up with somebody else. we went wit. we rolled with it. what would you say to that? >> i would say -- >> oh, sorry. >> i think it's a dear joe biden our vice president said. that's malarkey. here's why. you had trump with a secret service access and protection
from november 2015. so they had access to the building, personal security protection and to the record of who is come income or out with a meeting. any meeting with a foreign national, the first thing somebody should think of on a campaign is let me let someone know why this meeting is happening. you don't think, oh, let me invite the campaign chairman and several others and bring them into this potentialing compromising situation. this is an intelligence operation by a foreign adversary, they're going to exploit any loopholes of an amateur responsible. if you are trying to run for the highest office of the lands, take the office of the chief and protect national security. it is your responsibility to take notice and make some effort to keep track of how people are coming in and out of your office space, in particular, taking advantage of your family members. >> i want to fet to another detail of this interview that you had today, he also told you that the russian lawyer in that
meeting quote brought a folder with information about an american hedge fund operating in russia that she believed was funneling money to the democratic national committee. now this follow's donald trump, jr.'s promise on tuesday to turn over additional documents pertaining to that meeting. >> did you hand over any and all documents? >> well, i will. i said it publicly. i said it yesterday, more than happy to cooperate with everything everyone. i want the truth to get out there. >> he said nothing about being handed a folder in this meeting. what can you tell us about the contents there what might be in from? what might be being done with it right now? >> all we know, we're not, as i mention says, which is that the lawyer natalya did have such a folder. it related to hedge fund contributions, to the democratic national committee. you know, and that she had been researching this for years. now, we know they were going
after bill browder, the performer hedge fund guy who now lives in london, who basically ginned up the magnitskying a because of the death of his accountant magnitsky in russia. he lobbied very strongly the u.s. congress and to go after human rights abusers in russia who he believed had killed magnitsky and were a part of the putin regime and he persuaded congress to do so. now, so, i think we can surmise that what natalya was talking about were hedge fund contributions associated with bill browder's financial business. but rinat says he didn't see the folder. he didn't work on it. he doesn't know the contents of the folder beyond what natalya told him. can i take a step back here? to some extent this is all sort
of fascinating little details about who was at the meeting. but there is one key witness here who the versions you would think would be focused on. that's rob goldstone. he's the author of the e-mails. he's the one who said the russian government was wanted to impart this information to help the trump campaign. he's the one who said they were helping him do so. he's the one that works for them. he's the publicist for emen. it seems to me he is the obviously crucial witness one has to determine to make sense of this meeting. what was his basis for what he wrote in those e-mails? what did he really know and what information did he have? until we get the answers to that, i think we're all in the world of speculation. >> well, yes, and there have been all sorts -- we done know there was an e-mail in the first place. then when we found out what was in the e-mail, a lot of people were surprised how explicit that was. ken delaney, bigger picture
question in terms of where this might be going now, where investigators might be turning their attention right now, where robert mueller might be turning ais his attention, you got a week ago, you got a judgeingly announcement from donald jr., yes, there was a meeting, it was only about this issue of adropping. it has grown three or four times since then. everybody looks at this objectively, we don't know where it's growing, certainly they can't get the benefit of the doubt if trump world anymore on this subject after what we've seen in the last week. big picture. where did it go from here? >> steve, i think this meeting and the revelations about it are a game changer in the investigation. because they present the first evidence of actual collusion. remember for months, republicans have been saying, where's the beef? where's the collusion? here have you an offer from the russian government for help an acceptance by the trumped a minute agostration. of course, the other thing about this meeting that will get the attention of bob mueller, you said the concealment, the
changing stories, you know the failure to come clean, to disclose all of the participants. >> that is the kind of thing that peaks investigators. i imagine bab mueller's folks are all over it. >> now we're going to have to leave it there. thanks, to all of you for joining us. coming up, it has been seven days since that news broke of donald trump jr.'s meeting with that kremlin-linked attorney, every day has brought a new revelation and a new excuse, a new explanation, whatever you prefer, we will look at that defense next. plus for the first part, everyone is showing a willingness on the trump campaign to work with the russians. how long will trump voters stick by him? how long will republicans in congress stick by him? what will it take for that support to start to erode? we have new polling numbers to address. also a mention to the trump's expresident's club, when asked what an important quality a
welcome back a. mysterious donor and operative peter smith tried to obtain hillary clinton's e-mails from russian hackers. smith, quote, implied he was working with retired general michael flynn. according to "wall street journal" that operative died days after being interviewed about his efforts. the chicago tribune is reporting he actually committed suicide, leaving behind a cryptic note that says no foul play whatsoever was involved in his death. i am joined by a reporter that broke that story, a washington correspondent for the washington
tribune, katherine, you have been reporting on it. let's layout the facts here as you know them. basically, we know that peter smith, this role he was trying to play there covertly to dig up these clinton e-mails. that was revealed in the wall street journal. they toukd to him. a couple days later he died. we now find out it's a suicide, what can you tell us? >> ten days later after speaking with the wall street journal. they waited for due diligence, waited until the end of june to publish stories. when those came out, here is a man from an exclusive north shore. he's dead. he's reportedly looking for the hackers to find hillary's so-called missing e-mails. there were two gaping holes in my mind, where did he die and how did he die? i wok here in walk, this is my pack yard, the chicago tribune readership is there. i made eight point, for those two questions fundamentally. where did he die and how did he
die? within three or four days of reporting. i ascertained he took his life outside the mayo clinic complex in a private hotel and committed suicide by suffocation. >> and in terms of authorities and what they're saying about this are they satisfied that this was the note he left, said no foul play? you say at a hotel near the mayo clinic. this is used by patients with grim conditions to be going to a hotel like that, are authorities satisfied that's the story here? >> well, i think it's high will i high will likely this question tost took his own life. he was 80-years-old, he experienced shortness of breath. i will say this in additional reporting today in the chicago tribune, which was published late tonight and tomorrow. we are learning of other stressors in his life unrelated to the side line that made him famous. he was on the one hand a successful businessman and
financier. on the other hand he bank rolled opposition research for many years on behalf of the republicans hoping to hurt democrats, some of which he was very proud of. so one might interpret this may 4th call to the "wall street journal" of his publicizeing his own effort, apparently not successful, to find the so-called missing hillary clinton e-mails. >> all right, katherine, you broke this story last night. thank you for the reporting on. that we appreciate it. a quick break up next, though, it has been a week since that bombshell report came out first revealing donald trump jr.'s meeting with a russian lawyer. many more shoe versus dropped since then the story has been spun every which way. today is no different. you are watching "hardball." is this a phone?
or a little internet machine? [ phone ringing ] hi mom. it makes you wonder... shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. [ laughing ] so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. call or go to xfinitymobile.com introducing xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. . welcome back to "hardball" since the story first broke last
saturday. we seen it best described as a moving target. on saturday in a statement we now know crafted by the white house, donald trump jr. gave this statement that was misleading. we primarily discuss a program about the adoption of russian children. that was echoed by reince priebus. >> it was a short meeting. it was apparently about russian adoption. after about 20 minutes the meeting end and that was the end of it. >> that was last saturday. just a few hours later, the "new york times" reported that trump was, in fact, promised damaging information on hillary clinton before that meeting. in response, he put out a new statement, a revised statement saying he didn't even know the name of the person he was meeting. >> that shaded the truth as well, in an e-mail to him, she was striebd as the russian government attorney and on tuesday the president praised his son's transparency. >> i have a quick statement that i will read from the president.
my son is a high quality person and i applaud his transparency. >> the "new york times" reported trump only released his e-mails after being told the "times" was going to produce information. we did nothing wrong because it produced no useful information. >> did you tell your father anything about this? >> no, it was such a nothing. there was nothing to tell. it was literally a waist of 20 minutes, which was a shame. >> it was a meeting that took place, no exchange of information,. the meeting ended up producing nothing. now there is a media frenzy going around this. russia is instroekd attack as kind of the greatfment in t cam. the fact is zero happened here. >> yesterday the president offered his own spin. >> i think from a practical standpoint most people would have taken that meeting.
i've had many people call up, oh, gee, we have information on this person or that or frankly hillary. that's standard in politics. politics is not the nicest business, it's standards where they have information and you take the information. >> a week of revelations, a week of spin what does it all add up to? jonathan swan is a national reporter for axios. jonathan, our dpeft in the last block had some reporting that the lawyers in the white house knew about this e-mail, knew about this e-mail sent to donald trump from goldstone. they knew about it several weeks ago. so everything that has caused them all of this political trauma this week, potential political trauma. they knew weeks ago. you know the inner workings of this white house well, is there a way to square they knew this was out there. they knew this could happen with all of the evolving spin the chaotic spin that they've
produced this week? >> well, personally, i can confirm they did know about it. jared kushner's lawyers and outside counsel team released two weeks, which makes this statement the first statement that they released truly stunning, that they were in po sex of this e-mail that they put out a statement saying that this was all about russian adoption and left out the most salient details, which were sure to come out at some point. they were in the hands of -- this all came out because jared kushner had to update his disclosure form. this was all going to come out. it literally makes no sense from a communications standpoint. >> has anybody offered an explanation, this is what we thought would happen, has anybody offered anything? >> no the problem frankly internally no one wants to talk about this issue. what is happening at the moment, the most for them troubling die nam sick there are real tension
between donald trump's outside legal team and certain people inside, including the kushner camp. and so this is not some well oiled operation that's working smoothly together. you have an outside legal team that wants to put up a wall inside the white house between the president and his son-in-law, they're frustrated that jared kushner has been discussing the investigation with the president. then you fought other outside advisers to the president who believe donald trump's legal team is second rate. >> that really jared has much better lawyers and donald trump has gone for a loyalist and this one person said to me, you don't need a loyist loyalist who has this before, help you fight sexual harassment cases. >> kellyanne conway sets a high bar for what she says constitutes misdeeds by the trump campaign. >> even the goal posts have been removed. we were promised hard everyday on systemic sustained first
timive collusion that -- furtive collusion that not only affected but dictated the electoral outcome. we're the only people that says it's hillary clinton and nobody believes it. >> and last night conservative columnist charles kraut heimer had a different take. >> this was a bungled collusion. this was amateurist collusion. this was keystone cops collusion, but it doesn't change the fact it was attempted collusion. it undoes the white house story completely. >> well, ruth marcus, maybe, i, correct me if i'm wrong, i sense kellyanne conway potentially trying to move the goal post. she adds we were promised, the media the critics have promised, we were promised evidence of collusion. she added in that statement there, collusion that clearly impacted the outcome of the election. and if that's the standard you end up setting on all this with all the respations we seen and maybe more to come.
that's ultimately an unprovable thing. whatever you could ends up establishing the trump campaign did x, the russian government promised y. you can never establish. that 28,000 were changed here, that's ultimately an unprovable standard she is setting. >> and it's ridiculous and it's not a standard that anybody has set out for why we need various investigations, why mueller needs to be able to continue to do his job. she might as well have been carrying the goal post-herself over her shoulder moving tell when she said that. but the bigger point here is that when they teach crisis communications in future years, they're going to look at this episode in this last week as just the classic example of what not to do, time after time. i mean, the notion that you could sends out given what the lawyers knew, the white house chief of staff could be ignorant
and neglect enough to go out there and say there is a meeting about adoption, it's a big nothing burger when there is evidence that is going to contradict him. and even if he didn't know that he should have known it. anybody who saw that big flashing adverb primarily knew there was something more to this story on the first go around and it's just -- it's -- i've watch as lot of white houses mess up over the years, but this one is a doozee. >> a fairly constant refrain if there was one out of the white house when it came to explain is the idea there is nothing to see. >> i don't know much about it other than it seems to be on the end of the trump individual, a pig nothing burger. >> there was no other connection. no phone calls, no further meetings. this is a massive nothing burger. >> i want to ask you, the drip, drip, drip, is undermining the credibility of this administration. >> i think it's actually undermining the credibility of the media. because they drip, drip, drip, a
lot of things that don't seem to have much to do about nothing. >> so i just want to review in case you run outs of time. this is how i see it so far to help aumt all the people at home. what's the collusion? collusion, no. we don't have that yet. i see illusion and delusion. just so we're clear, everyone, collusion, no, illusion, delusion yet. >> i got to say, few went back if time a couple weeks ago, there was the case the white house was making. this is the case republicans are making, look, for automatic talk, for all the smoke out there, nothing may be reveal. i remember chris murphy, democrat senator saying hey maybe democrats are spending too much time on this russia thing. it seems to me things changed materially this week when you have an e-mail saying a meeting with somebody that has connections with powerful people in russia, saying on behalf of the russian government effort to
help the trump campaign, that meeting takes place, the list of people on it grows, realistically, how many u how much longer can they cling to this as their spin? is this just it? this is what we will hear from here on? >> i will say two points, they might be saying nothing burger, until this week, privately, nobody was arguing it was a nothing burger. when that e-mail came out they knew it was bad. then it switched to, well, no crimes were committed and the second point of spin that came sort of immediately was working out you can we divert the back on to hillary clinton, how can we shift it back to obama or wiretapping or illegal under surveillance, things of that nature. it was straight away an acknowledgment this was terrible. the first thoughts were how can we deflect this? >> the reality, intern ally, i think the stories of it crazy inside the white house are not quite accurate. the fact is outsourced their
responses, the white house legal team. you have a white house sitting there not doing anything about this. they're not dealing with this problem. they're not in crisis communications mode, because they're not doing anything. >> all right, jonathan swan, ruth marcus. thanks to both of you for joining us. still ahead, is the latest scandal in the russian scandal a red line for voters? we'll take a new polling. this is "hardball, where the action is.
. welcome back to "hardball" as more and more pieces of the russian investigation puzzle start to fall in place. a new poll shows a majority of americans, 53% of them, say it was inappropriate for president trump's son to meet a russian lawyer. when you break down those numbers, you see 60% of trump supporters people that voted for him found it totally appropriate. only 17% say it was inappropriate and usa today spoke to some voet voters in indiana and it didn't resonate for them. one said it would take a lot to abandon president trump, he would maybe kill someone, just in cold blood, that's what it would take to lose her support. i am joining with a man from providence, the governors are having a big meeting there. governor, thank you for joining us. let's take the hoard car trump
supporters out of it. let me ask you to try to get to the middle of the electorate, i think what is clear, as this whole russia thing is played out. there is a large chunk of voters out there, i don't know what you want to call them, die hard democrats, they never liked trump. they really like hillary. they have been keyed in, from the beginning, when you get beyond that world the people invested in it from the very beginning and anti-trump, voters in the middle, the mushy middle out there do you sense this issue is penetrating to that level or when you ask those voters about russia, do they shrug? >> well, i haven't seen a pom, but certainly in conversation it seems like they're beginning to i think what they worry about is the lack of transparency. if this is draining the swamp. >> that implies you will tell the truth, get the facts out there where everyone can see them. we keep hearing this stuff that, you know the one thing about him coming into the story, it's
almost like somebody is writing a screen play, right? he comes in saying there was a document that natalie left with donald trump jr. yet we haven't we heard anything about this. i mean, is this all coming out in little bits? i mean, there must be some reason for it to come out so slowly, right? >> i'm trying to get to what the conversation is like among voters and among your constituents in a place that's yet e competitive and donald trump may have won, today you are meeting with the governor's association, mike pence, the transport was there in part to sell you guys, i imagine with you, he didn't make much segue, but overhauling obamacare, as a democrat, trying to make the case against the president trump administration, what will it be,
hey, look what we found about russia or a look what they're trying to do about health care? >> i think we are spending may too much time talking about russia. i think we should stay on the health care. why are we rushing this through? many democratic governors agree we need to improve and change ports of the affordable care act. to roll that on so many people. to put so 'people at risk, especially the penalties that will be placed on people 50 to 65-years-old, those kind of burdens aren't well known to people. maybe the russian thing is trying to distract voters so they won't be so agitated and begin to pressure the senators who are trying to make up their mind to support this new senate health care plan. >> democratic governor from colorado. thank you for taking a few minutes. we appreciate it. >> of course. coming up next, president
>> will come back to "hardball." let's return to the russia investigation. we we heard in the last block, the president's core supporters think the issue is much ado about nothing t. latest weekly approval rating for the president put his approval rating at tlith% among republicans that number stand at 85%. let's bring in an opinion columnist with the poverty and a senior reporter for politico, new york. thanks to all of you for being with us. katherine, i think the interesting thing, we look at this question on republican opinion on russia is, i'm
looking for the folks who are influential with republican voters, with republican audiences, signs that they may be reaching the breaking point in this. i saw a few this week who i haven't previously len expressing criticism and more about trump on this i do think just given now the potential for this thing to expand more, maybe a lot more than it did this week. i am starting to see -- i'm not seeing the break only of republican voters, in my mind, iseeing the path how it could happen. >> i'm sure there is a path. i'm not seeing it right now. partly because i think the republican voters are not either being exposed to a lot of this news because they're consuming news media that doesn't cover it or at least covers it through the filter of a trump surrogate or someone else like sean hannity and so they're getting it with this, the sweetest gloss that you can imagine.
right? very sympathetic to trump, himself. so it seems unlikely to me that trump voters, themselves are going to change their mind and until you see those pundits on tv telling them otherwise or this news exists, it's not going to happen. >> looking at this whole dynamic, if there will be a brake amongst trump in washington, republican leaders there, it's bought the to come more from that grass roots level and whether it's fox radio or fax news, whatever the influential voices are, i'm trying to think of the psychology of a republican member of congress watched donald trump go through so many fatal scandals and fought when the election but with 90% of the republican support. if are you a republican member of congress, you look at this and say i don't think this is going to turn my vote, against him, so i better not be against him. >> i don't know what to think, completely honest with you. watching the way the republicans in congress are handling something like the health care
bill. i'm so puzzled because it seems like their own constituents are not for that bill. yet they're stale fighting for a bill that isn't popular with them and i feel like maybe that's why some of those constituents are distracted enough by that to not be paying attention to what's going on, the massive lies and things going on with russia. but it's a very puzzling dynamic. i'm telling you, steve, trying to prepare for tonight. i kept looking at different dynamics going i don't get it. i don't know why more republicans aren't standing up and saying, hey, this is wrong. hey, i don't even have security clearance. how can jared kushner still have it? hey, i'm concerned, too. >> it is an argument. it is a discussion. it's a conversation we have been having i think literally from the very start of the donald trump campaign. you think of that speech he made when he entered the race back on june 2015. he's made those comments about mexicans. you we heard voices then saying
it is not right, it is not normal. it is not proper. it's not acceptable for a president of the united states or you we heard republicans say for a republican candidate for president to say those things. you we heard it when you we heard about the muslim ban. you we heard it when he played dumb about david duke. you hard it order and over. he won the primaries the nomination. by a narrow margin, he did get elected president. i'm hearing again the conversation. is it right? is it proper? is it acceptable for a president, his son, to hold he's meetings, it has been the same conversation all along. >> that's the one constant he has taken every piece of controversy, everything that has been an obstacle to him. he's held et up as proof as he's doing something against the establishment. he came in not as a republican, a crusader in the republican party running against the establishment. few think about michael plume berg, right, he wanted to run for president. he couldn't do it in the republican party or democratic
party and got blocked out. donald trump's strategy was to go within the republican party and campaign against the party. apparently there is enough of a population that likes that kind of message. >> that's the dynamic here, it was a takeover of the republican party. he staged a takeover with the support of these voters, the republicans the washington saying ki stand up to him and survive my primary next year? >> i think this establishment he was fighting against, look, i watched cartoons growing up. i remember in bullwinkle boris and natasha, you looked at them a little funny. you know you knew the russians even then, there was a whole different dynamic over the cold war period or what not. anybody with brains that went to school and studded history, you now you didn't tangle with russia when it colt comes a an election, i don't know how that is supporting a foreign entity that's worked against us is
somehow takingt to the man? >> we have to squeeze in one break, president trump's taste in music. ists not exactly clear. today we got a sense of what the president doesn't like. this is" hardball," where the action s. so let the geico insurance agency help you with homeowners insurance and protect yourself from things like fire, theft, or in this case, water damage. cannonball! now if i had to guess, i'd say somewhere upstairs there's a broken pipe. let the geico insurance agency help you with homeowners insurance. call today to see how much you could save.
take a look. >> humility. i think it's really important to know what you don't know and listen to people who do know what you don't know. >> if you want to be president, realize it's about the people, not about you. when it's over and that's what a lot of these people who are real arrogant in office, they forget time passes. it passes more quickly than you know. you want to be able to say people are better off when i quit. kids had a better future. thanks for coming together. you don't want to say, god, look at all the people i beat. >> back with our roundtable. i'm having a hard time figuring out who bill clinton was talking about there. >> i think this was a pretty clear sub-tweet. this was sort of a two-part sub-tweet. they were talking about humility, but two different kinds, right? one is don't be a sore victor. don't lord over the people that
you have beaten, that you have beaten them, right? be gracious. i can't imagine who they were talking about. the other kind of humility is be humble accepting what you don't know, what your limitations are, and where you need to get guidance, and on both of those issues, the current president has not been doing particularly well. >> there's that whole code of the former presidents club that they don't like to criticize each other. it's not, you know, becoming of them. >> right. >> yeah. well, and when it comes to the current president, i think those very well thought messages will be responded to by crickets. it's not going to penetrate. it happens. >> i also don't know that trump would realize that they're talking about him. >> his name is not mentioned, and unless there's a parade maybe or some music or something like that attached to a piece of paper that he is going to hold up and sign, i don't think it's going to matter. >> trump even has said that he is more humble than everybody even realizes. he said this on "60 minutes" interview. >> i got to say, though, i can't
let this pass without mentioning i hear george w. bush say the most important thing is to be humble. does anybody remember the last time george w. bush talked about the importance of being humble? >> and admitting when he made mistakes. i remember he couldn't quite think of it. >> in the debate in the 2000 election i asked him about what kind of foreign policy he was going have, and george w. bush said the most important thing in foreign policy is to be humble and not to go into other countries and tell them this is how you're going to do things. i remember that. i hear it now. roundtable staying with us, where up exin, they'll tell me three things i don't know. this is "hardball." where the action is. show me winter in july.
epic battles. ferocious families. dangerous dragons. experience game of thrones and all the rest of hbo for free from july 10th through the 16th with xfinity on demand. from action, to comedy, to drama. this summer hbo and xfinity have you covered. and catch the game of thrones season 7 premiere on july 16th. winter is coming to xfinity.
we're back with "hardball." >> for the fourth year in a row trump is doing the palm beach county property appraiser's office because he says that his golf course is not worth as much as they claim it is. he says it's worth less than $5 million even though on his financial disclosure forms he said it was worth more than $50 million. >> i did not know that. nancy. >> i want to underscore that david letterman gave an incredible interview to the associated press. i say yeah, dave. >> ozzy. >> robert mercer, a key trump supporter, has given his first contribution to a new york city candidate. it is for the republican.
>> very diplomatic. ozzy, i put him on the spot there. nancy, catherine, thank you all for joining us. that's it for us here on "hardball." chris matthews will return to this chair monday night or the version of this chair in washington. rachel maddow show starts right now. tonight this hour we've got somebody here for the interview that i'm very, very happy to have landed. he was the deputy director of the russia office at the state department for years. the senior director for russia at the national security council for years. he was the senior person at the pentagon on russia for years. he has stuff to tell us, and he is going to be here tonight for the interview. i'm really looking forward to that. but there is a bunch going on tonight tonight.