tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC March 22, 2019 1:00am-2:00am PDT
putin. all of it as the 11th hour gets underway on a consequential thursday night. good evening, once again from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. day 791 of the trump administration, and washington is bracing for impact tonight. anxiously waiting for robert mueller to transmit his report to attorney general bill barr. all the fevered anticipation had photographers stationed around the d.c. metro area today, hoping to spot the key players. as a result, look at what we learned this morning. robert mueller drives a car, and owns a baseball cap. we say this because viewers of this and other broadcasts have ample reason to wonder if robert mueller does anything other than walk down hallways carrying a briefcase. less exciting, but no less important. today's photos of the attorney general, bill barr seen leaving his home today, hours later spotted entering the white house, for what we're quickly told was a regularly scheduled meeting and not mueller related. adding to the intrigue, deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, also seen leaving the white house today, whenever attorney
general barr does get this long awaited report, he will review it and decide what to make public. and he is notably under no time constraints during that process. aaron blake of the washington post wrote about some possible scenarios here, of what might happen. one option that has been floated for barr is releasing separate reports. former justice department officials have suggested he could deliver two reports to congress, one with unclassified information that could be given to all lawmakers and would presumably leak. and a separate one that would be given to a much smaller universe of congressional leaders. what could go wrong? blake points out another possible outcome could be the
whole mueller report eventually becomes public after a legal fight. former fbi director james comey weighed in on the mueller report today and at times op ed he has no idea what mueller might conclude. and adds this, i also don't care. i care only that the work be done well and completely. if it is justice will have prevailed and core american values will have been protected at a time when so much of our national leadership has abandoned its commitment to truth and the rule of law. new york times keeps a running tally on all of mueller's work nearly two years into this investigation. and the times indeed writes that mueller has issued more than 100 criminal counts against dozens of people including six trump advisers or officials. meanwhile, we're also tracking important developments on congressional investigations into this white house today. we learned this afternoon, the white house has rejected a request from house democrats for documents relating to trump's private discussions with vladimir putin. and oversight chairman elijah cummings of maryland, accused the administration of obstructing his committee's investigation into use of
private e-mail accounts by white house officials. he's demanding documents related to jared kushner and ivanka trump. cummings said, a lawyer for jared kushner told the committee in december that kushner had been using whatsapp on his phone to communicate with foreign leaders. abby lowell argued his client was in compliance with the law. because he took screen shots of the individual text conversations and sent them to official e-mail accounts. according to cummings, lowell told the company, ivanka trump continued to receive official e males on her private account and did not always forward them to her white house address. abby lowell said kushner denied using whatsapp to communicate with foreign leaders. he said the conversation was about e-mail use prior to 2017. all this, of course, is a touchy subject with house democrats, as
you may recall, private e-mails came up during the campaign. >> it's unbelievable how hillary clinton got away with the e-mail lie, the e-mail scam, the e-mail corruption. >> i guarantee you, one thing, we're going to be talking about those e-mails every moment of every day. >> this is the biggest scandal since watergate. >> she lied like a dog on her e-mails. >> as far as briefings and all, i will do much better than hillary clinton ever did with her e-mails she exposed the entire country to whatever she's learning as secretary of state. you don't get any worse than that. >> our opinion el is standing by, first we want to get the latest from our own julia ainsley. julia, by my count you've been spending 12 hours a day at the justice department. and we keep talking about high anxiety, answer this to the
extent you can. why is it we believe we're close? >> brian, something is fundamentally different in these past 72 to 48 hours around this probe. i've been down there every day, basically for the last month, when we heard it might be coming soon. now we're told that it is on a day by day basis, hour by hour, we could really get it any time, we do not expect it to come during the wee hours of the morning. we expect it to be during the central daylight business hours of washington. but when it does come, it's key to remember two things, first, attorney general william barr will have to tell congress, and he will have to send them a letter. and he will, of course, notify the public. we expect he will do that, he doesn't have to do that, it's not laid out in the memo given that explains what goes on with the special counsel's investigation, we understand he will do that. secondly, he will decide how to do that report that aaron
blakley lays out, it could be just a fraction of what he gets from the mueller report. but right now, it's all high anxiety. the thing that has changed, people who are in a position to be prepared to receive this report have told justice department reporters, capitol hill reporters, white house reporters that they really do expect it any day now. this is not just washington reporters working each other into a frenzy, i know that's probably what it looks like from the outside. >> and there's the friday factor in washington, and we note the president has a 9:30 a.m. wheels up from the south lawn for mar-a-lago tomorrow. and you've been watching all the individuals in this as best you can and it's important to reemphasize the obligation is not on mueller to say it's away, it's left here. the obligation is on barr to say, we've got it over here. >> absolutely. this person for this information then becomes william barr or his
spokesperson. it leaves the hands of the special counsel. we've been keeping a lot of tabs on these moving players throughout the day. it was surprising how many public appearances we did see today from william barr, there was a commemoration ceremony to give jeff sessions his cabinet chair today. we got to go see that, we saw jeff sessions, william barr and rod rosenstein on a stage where they gave remarks, did not take questions from the press at this kind of event. and is not surprising given the timing of today. it was amazing to see those critical players in this investigation all on stage together. at such a critical juncture as this. >> julia, we'll let you go back to your winnebago parked outside the justice department, thank you for staying up late with us tonight. and giving us the latest as you see it. julia ainsley in our washington bureau. let's bring off the rest of our leadoff panel on a thursday night. a distinguished fellow in
criminal justice at the pace university school of law. and clint watts is here. mimi, i'd like to begin with you. and let's take half a step back. what do you hope happens, starting tomorrow or whenever bill barr gets this report? >> i hope that first of all, mueller is allowed to finish doing whatever it is that he has planned and thinks he needs to go. that's the first thing. and that whatever document information he turns over to bill barr, that the crux of that information gets turned over to congress and made public. i know that there are justice department guidelines about not releasing information about
people who are not being charged. i just don't think that those rules should apply here. >> why not? >> because those rules are about the public interest. they exist to run the department of justice. we should not make the findings that are damaging to those people public. we have a person, because of a department of justice policy cannot be charged, we the public deserve to know and need to know, the public interest here weighs in favor of twranz parentscy. is he not being charged. is the president not going to be charged, if he's charged. i assume there's no charges against him forth coming from robert mueller in the next few days or months, is that because he's the president and it's under that policy?
or is it because whatever mueller found was -- did not rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt, which i believe is the standard that robert mueller will apply for himself. even though he's not in a court of lay at the moment. >> you've been in the fight for the home team. you were in the fight against russia as an electronic matter, given that background, what do you hope happens starting whenever barr gets this report? >> i hope we get a full understanding of what the russia influence, cyber attack on our elections comes out to be. we have parts of it, i would like to see what the entire influence effort was, that way we know what was successful, what wasn't successful and what we need to prepare for in the future, that was the reason we started this for. i think the other part that we definitely need to know is to what disagree do people in the trump campaign know they were
interacting with russia or not? this has sort of been left into the public space. we hear this constant no, i didn't, yes, i did. this meeting was for that. i would like those connections to be sewn up. the third part is money. the influence of money, it's the one piece that no one really knows that's out in the public. we see speculation on one side. condemnation on the other. what is it really that is happening in terms of all these money relationships, if it's just natural business and we don't like it, maybe we need to write some laws in our constitution, we say, president has to divest his business. the president can't take help or aid from overseas. the president cannot call for russia if if you've got those e-mails. those are things we can do from this report that provides the insights about what is good legislation moving forward, so we don't have to go through this again. >> or share campaign polling data perhaps. >> that's right. >> i can't ask about your hopes and dreams and goals from this, because you're a journalist, i can ask you what you expect to come out of the white house the
minute we learn it's been transmitted? >> well, they have a number of contingencies in place. it kind of depends on what is transmitted and whether they actually get a head's up about that. it's not clear whether or not they will. so, you know, they are standing by as we are standing by as everyone else is standing by. to see what happens. you know, it's pretty safe to bet, though, that the president's rhetoric is not going to change much, no matter what is in the report. and the president's rhetoric is that this is a witch hunt. he's used that word to describe the investigation more than 200 times since it started. and he will continue pushing that line. if you look at public polling, public opinion has shifted somewhat, in favor of the president's view of this. in part, because mueller has
been completely silent, aside from some pretty juicy indictments and other court filings. and the president and his allies have been beating up on the investigation day after day after day after day after day. >> mueller seems to have a valid driver's license, that's one of the things we learned today. hey, clint, back to your expertise, and let's shift this a little bit from what we reported from the hill today. e-mails have been litigated in the public space. >> right. >> what is, however, the real danger of an ivanka trump using private e-mails, gmail or whatever her choosing is. what's the danger of jared on whatsapp with a foreign leader, perhaps the unsavory kind. >> it's interesting, this story came out at the same time in the new york times today. we see a story about internet mercenaries, private security companies working for foreign governments in order to target people at the point of origin,
at the phone. this is what it's about now, it's not about this intercepting enroute. it's about companies having the ability. i hear about it all the time. going in and targeting anyone's phone and being able to tap into those communications. we cannot have this. we heard e-mails, lock her up. e-mails, lock her up. to me this is far more egregious, this is foreign business interactions, and it's being blocked from other parts of the u.s. government. this means foreign leaders have a better understanding of what the white house is communicating than our own intelligence community and our own law enforcement and our own allies, this puts us in a dangerous condition. we really don't know what's going on at the top, and we have no oversite of it. >> let's go to our counsel for this discussion. does the white house have any standing to tell the house democrats, take your concerns elsewhere?
we're not going to participate? >> well, they can say that. i think the question really is, what can the house then do in reaction? first of all, it looks bad, this is a president who as we've been just discussing, how can you say i'm innocent i've done nothing wrong, this is a witch hunt but i'm not going to cooperate in anyway. he's been doing that the same way he wouldn't sit down with mueller for an interview, and yet he has nothing to hide. >> no clougs. >> he's mentioned that once or twice. here, look, this was the result of the election. the house now has subpoena power. will that play out in a way that is practical that we will see the results of it? probably not. by the time they -- the white house has an interest in just dragging this out, it could be 2020 before this gets resolved if they just keep saying no. and the house has to litigate subpoenas.
it's going to be complicated. so i think the better argument frankly is, if you have nothing to hide, cooperate. and while robert mueller wasn't going to come out and have that argument, house members can. they're in a much different position. >> tomorrow is day 675 on the job for robert mueller. if we get this thing tomorrow it ends waiting period number one. it only begins waiting period number two. while we go -- we transit to the dark side of the moon while this is inside the justice department. what to expect from the white house during that, where they are dealing with the active and ongoing threat of these house democrats? >> the white house has been trying to handle these things one at a time. so today there was this big announcement regarding kushner
and whatsapp and ivanka trump. the white house responded to a letter from several weeks ago today, regarding the putin meetings. so they're sort of moving through this in sort of a slow and deliberate way, which you could also call slow walking. the white house is responding slowly and saying, you aren't going to get what you want. you're certainly not going to get it right now. and elijah cummings in his letter today, the oversite committee chairman, the line unrelated to substance, the line that really stood out to me from that letter, is elijah cummings saying, in this congress, the white house has not produced a single document, not a single page. and that is by design. >> yeah, that gets your attention. and slow walking is a time
honored washington tradition. >> oh, yes. >> to camera keith, to mimi rocah, and clint watts, thank you all so much for starting off our broadcast tonight. as mueller watch continues, congress keeps this pressure on the president and his inner circle. a member of those two critical house companies is standing by to join us next. the new twist in the wait for joe biden's decision, and this is interesting about a different way at another run for the white house. the 11th hour is just getting started on the aforementioned crucial thursday night. you.
it handles everything, and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi, this is xfi. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity, the future of awesome. i huang the to know whether you talked to president trump at all about the southern district of new york's case involving michael cohen? >> as i've mentioned several times today, i am not going to discuss my private conversations with the president of the united states. >> yes or no, did you -- >> yes or no, did you discuss with the -- president trump,
anything about michael cohen. >> as i have expressed several times today. i am not -- >> did you ever have any conversations with the president about firing or reassigning any personnel, u.s. attorneys or others -- with the president or anybody? >> anybody at all. >> that was our next guest, leading some of the tougher questioning of former ag whitaker. as we mentioned, the white house is rejecting a request for documents relating to president trump's private meetings with vladimir putin. politico obtained a letter from white house counsel to adam schiff, democrat of california and others, that reads in part, "the committee's letters site no legal authority that another branch of the government can
make the president disclose discussions with other government leaders. >> joining us now, congresswoman flora. if you could sit down one on one with the white house counsel, how would you make your case that it is indeed your business. >> thank you for having me. i believe this entire investigation is about more than diplomatic conversations with foreign leaders. mueller's entire investigation started out with russia interfering with our election. who who conspired with the united states and the president. they have had over 100 contacts with russian officials prior to the election.
six people have been indicted, pleaded guilty i think that congress has every right to understand the nature of the conversations, those private conversations that the president has gone to great lengths to conceal or shield from us and from the american people. i believe we have every right to know. and i know that congress, especially our chairmans on all of the committees that are involved with will not stop. >> what do you worry about when you learn that jar id kushner is using whatsapp on his phone? >> it's unbelievable. remember, we're talking about someone who had issues obtaining a security clearance in the first place. obviously, the president's son in law has no understanding of the seriousness and why those applications should not be used. the vulnerable of using those
applications, especially to communicate official business with a foreign power. i wish i could say i'm surprised, but remember, we're talking about someone who received a recommendation that they not get a clearance, and his father-in-law interceded to help him get one. >> there are people who have anxiety about what we might be awaiting as early as tomorrow. the end of the mueller portion of this case. you are -- let's go ahead and label you a law and order democrat, police officer for 27 years, if i have my math right. former chief of the orlando pd, so what assurances can you give the people watching? >> that your party in the house will try to avoid being is warted and try to take up where other investigations leave off? >> i think the american people sent a clear and convincing message during the 2018 election
that they wanted the democratic party to provide the necessary oversite that we are providing. we have only been in the majority for a couple months. you have seen the number of hearings that we've helped, the number of witnesses we've had to bring before our committees. we voted to make the mueller report public. so i believe that the president is interested at all and acted on good faith, providing the transparency that the american people want to see us provide. he will be glad to see the mueller report come forward, i'm hoping that attorney general barr, who had served in that role before will listen to the american people, listen to congress, the overwhelming vote that we took, and make the report public. so we can move on and take the necessary action that i believe the american people elected us
to take. >> congresswoman demmings, of the state of florida, thank you for coming on with us tonight. we appreciate it. coming up for us on a thursday evening, new reporting on just how well the white house is reacting to all this pressure we've been talking about, and their plan going-forward when we go forward.
these folks, they don't have time to go to the post office they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again!
there are indictments in this president's future. they're coming. whether they're after his presidency or during it. >> something right there that may be weighing on the president's mind. even as the white house is hit with a barrage of document requests. everything from putin to his business dealings, so far, trump and his people have declined to hand anything over. anita reports interrupt's white house has had an unusually hostile reaction. and we quote, in their early response to an on slaught of democratic requests. trump officials are breaking from the norm of both parties, according to people who worked in the white house or capitol hill during the presidencies of bill clinton, george w. bush and barack obama. here with us tonight to talk about all of this, a.b. stoddard, at real clear politics.
and the aforementioned anita kumar associate idder for politico. one of the days i'm going to meet this guy named norm. talk to us about norm and how different is this from normal times? >> no president wants to turn over anything to congress. no matter what party, that's just not what they want to do. what we're finding that's different this time is that generally, the white house will respond to their letters that they get to the requests they get. and they open the door for conversation. we will provide these documents but not these. they will open up a negotiation that may last weeks or months, or in some cases, we'll be into the next year. they're not responding most of the time.
deadlines come and go. and many cases they're not centering the cursory, the typical letter back. they're ignoring those deadlines. which basically tells us they don't want to negotiate. the one -- you mentioned the putin letter, there was a big batch of letters you'll recall that the house judiciary sent to 81 people. the deadline was monday for everyone. the white house didn't respond to that. >> i hate to be a cynic about this stuff, i truly do. a strong man, republican president tells democrats on the hill to pound salt. doesn't everyone just stay in their bubbles and the base is fine with that? >> i think the base loves the fact that he's defiant and has no intention of giving an inch and is going to characterize this as partisan and overreaching. when we get into subpoenas, it's going to be different. it's one thing to try to run out the clock. you usually give with one hand, so you can take away with the other. this is a slammed door.
if the democrats continue to get stonewalled by the administration, they're going to have to chose their battles wisely, and not just do a big spray of subpoenas, like they did with that 81 person document request. that will be a more high stakes fight. this is not at all uncharacteristic, even during consequential things, where the president needs to be involved bills to reopen the government, he's often nowhere to be found. >> on that note, both of our guests have agreed to stay with us. coming up, we're going to talk about 2020 politics, and this is interesting, the rumblings about joe biden and something he might just attempt to try to forge a unique path to the white house where he last served as number two. the question is, is it a gimmick or brilliant or both when we continue.
criticized by the new left. i'm the most progressive record of anybody running for the united -- of anybody who would run. [ cheers and applause ] >> of anybody who would run. >> joe biden still hasn't come any closer than that to announcing an actual run. there are new reports that he is already considering a running mate, and this gets real interesting. axios reported today biden's advisers are debating stacey abrams as an out of the gate vp choice. she lost her race for georgia governor, she's said all options are on the table for 2020. according to axios. the popular georgia democrat who at age 45 is 31 years younger
than biden would bring diversity and excitement to the ticket. showing voters that biden isn't just another old white guy. new york times adds this, also under decision is a possible pledge to serve only one term. and framing mr. biden's 2020 campaign as a one-time rescue mission for a beleaguered country. so much to discuss. so little time. at least we have a.b. stoddard and anita kumar to do so. desperate or genius. >> i'm acknowledging my potential liabilities and he won't do this, or it's really stupid. he really shouldn't do it. there is so much consensus to be formed in the democratic primary electorate. what if he paired up with stacey abrams now and down the road she calls for impeachment depending on something stumbling out of the southern district of new york.
you can't cement this pairing this early. but i think this conversation has told the voters he understands, he could sort of -- you have to run as vibrant and strong enough to serve two terms, but you could hint, maybe it will be one. say i'm a lame duck at the start. this could start the conversation that makes them realize he's self-aware and he wants to shore up those vulnerabilities. >> we're going to put the latest polling on the screen. i assume there's a reason of two guys that are in the top bracket. both at 26%. and after them that's a sizable bit of the electorate out there. what do you make of this biden story. >> they're on there because of name recognition, they're in the public eye more than some of these other people. i remember covering hillary clinton in the race in 2016, and there was a lot of talk about age and you had hillary clinton,
bernie sanders and donald trump. donald trump is not much younger than joe biden. i talked to a lot of voters, two years ago. who said they didn't care. who said age was experience, and they kind of wanted that. we saw this remarkable -- thing that happened in 2016 where an older person got elected. he had no experience at all, in government, so i'm just not sure that the age thing matters so much. it's interesting that he's fixating on that, when others are just as old as he is. or almost as old as he is. >> there's a case to be made that alexandria ocasio-cortez gets more air time on fox news. there's clearly an effort to brand her as the beating heart of the democratic party, the talk of socialism, the tower of the far left going-forward. >> president trump has starts his re-election campaign and
he's running against the socialists. and the democrats are giving him way too much of an opportunity toe be three freshmen congress women. no one on the democratic primary campaign trail is pushing back on them and they're letting them take up. don't push back, they're nervous about trying to absorb the energy on the left, and seen as scary moderate centrists. if they allow aoc to dictate the terms of the party and become the identity of the party, they're going to be in real trouble next year. >> i don't know how to say this gently, because the three of us in this conversation, this is not our first rodeo. we know joe biden's history, legislative -- if you have any years on you, you think it's kind of been talked about and examined over the time.
a new generation is learning joe biden's history, legislative and otherwise in washington. things like anita hill, the thomas hearings, and this is all new to them. a lot of them are on the so-called progressive left. >> it's definitely an issue, and it's an issue for everyone who's had a long history like he has. it was an issue for hillary clinton. for people who have long histories, society has changed. it is something that he's going to have to deal with. i think that his people are perfectly well aware that's going to happen. they're going to have to answer questions about how things have changed and how he's changed. >> is there a democrat in the running in that polling graphic we saw people declared? is a kamala harris with a
prosecutor background? any better able to rise forward after we get the mueller report transmitted. when we get more and more into investigations to make that more of a selling point? >> perhaps, but it's early stages, and right now she's very worried about the primary. the sort of first voters of the party. and a very active base that's concerned with criminal justice issues, and their anti-prosecutor. she's starting out not wanting to talk about that. that's where a lot of the energy is that she's going to have to face some kind of litmus test on that, it would be interesting to see if she gets to be a law and order democrat once we're on the other side of these investigations, right now she's trying to talk about her experience in solving problems, not so much the cases she was involved in.
>> it is true. both parties have this burden. you almost need to be a different candidate to succeed in primary politics as a republican or a democrat than you do in the general. >> i feel like that's always the case. every time, every time this happens, and there's so many people running right now in the democratic party, that's all they can do is focus on these 12 plus other people that they're running against. they'll get to donald trump eventually. but they kind of need to distinguish themselves, and a lot of them are trying to do that, some of them on the policy issues, and they're also trying to do that on -- as you said, age and experience. and also againeder diversity. there's a lot of things to look at. >> thank you for joining us on
this thursday night. coming up for us. it's more than just one badly wounded navy veteran sticking up for another badly wounded navy veteran. the public request that's been made to the president when we come back. what happened to the real men of america? today's average red-blooded american man has less testosterone than his father. and his father has less testosterone than his father. before we suffer a full-on masculinity crisis, force factor is launching the man up america event.
we want to send every man in america a complimentary bottle of the breakout supplement taking gnc by storm. test x180 ignite, loaded with free-testosterone-boosting manliness. get your complimentary bottle by texting the keyword on the screen to 20-20-20. during workouts, test x180 ignite raises levels of free testosterone in your body to help build lean muscle. plus it helps burn fat, fuel desire, and improve performance. now you can continue to feel like the real men that made this country great. do yourself a favor. do america a favor. text the keyword on the screen to 20-20-20 for your complimentary bottle. that's a complimentary bottle by texting the keyword on the screen to 20-20-20.
tomorrow morning, trump was asked why he keeps on criticizing the late senator john mccain. >> you spent a good portion of your time in ohio the other day trashing john mccain. senator john mccain is dead. why are you doing this? >> so it's not a good portion of my time, it's a very small portion, but if you realize about three days ago it came out that his main person gave to the fbi the fake news dossier. it was a fake. it was a fraud. it was paid for by hillary clinton and the democrats. they gave it to john mccain who gave it to the fbi. >> but, mr. president, he's dead. he can't punch back. i know you punch back but he's dead. >> i don't talk about it. you brought it up. >> well, you talked about him this week. >> he was horrible what he did with repeal and replace. what he did to the republican party and to the nation and to sick people that could have had great health care was not good. so i'm not a fan of john mccain and that's fine. >> trump's rhetoric, as she noted, seemed to hit a new low yesterday during that speech in
ohio. the president complained to a silent crowd about never having been thanked for mccain's funeral, which he said as president he had to approve. but mccain family friend and longtime adviser rick davis did thank the trump administration last august, and he did so in front of tv cameras shortly before the multistate funeral services were under way. today the national cathedral in washington felt the need to point out, "no funeral at the cathedral requires the approval of the president or any other government official." also today on "the view," meghan mccain read on air what her little sister bridget had shared online. >> she felt inclined to say and tweet this, "mr. trump, everyone doesn't have to agree with my dad or like him, but do i ask that you be decent and respectful. if you can't do those two things, be mindful. we only said good-bye to him almost seven months ago. even if you were invited to my
dad's funeral, you would have only wanted to be there for the credit and not the condolences. unfortunately, you could not be counted on to be courteous, as you are a child in the most important role the world knows." >> criticism of donald trump from members of his own party remains somewhat sparse. when asked if trump is being disrespectful, the senator from arizona who now occupies john mccain's seat in the senate and also happens to be a decorated military veteran, martha mcsally, said this -- >> there's a lot of disrespect going on out there all the way around. i did talk to the president yesterday. i wanted to make sure he understood how i felt about senator mccain and how arizona felt about senator john mccain. and he heard me. >> freshman congressman dan crenshaw of texas, also a decorated and wounded veteran who lost an eye as a navy s.e.a.l. said today, and this is quite simple, "mr. president, seriously, stop talking about
and to presidency buffs that date will bring an important milestone. james earl carter jr. will minutes from now break the record once held by the late george h.w. bush and become the longest living former president in our nation's history at age 94 years, 172 days. he was the first american president born in a hospital and not at home. and he was born during the presidency of calvin coolidge in 1924, five years before the great depression. often overlooked about jimmy carter is the fact that while in the navy he was a submariner, which can be a marketer and a shaper of your life after service. and, indeed, jimmy carter, a hearty and self-directed and deeply religious man has always been a man apart, even in this famous photograph among other living presidents at the time in the oval office. he was quite literally the man apart.
while his presidency routinely gets low marks despite some great achievements and great prescients on matters like energy policy and fossil fuels, he has lived easily the most exemplary post-presidency in our history. it started way earlier than he wanted to in 1981 and in those intervening years, he has travelled the globe fighting to eradicate diseases, talking about peace, observing elections and writing over 30 books. put it this way, our taxpayer money paid for his college education at annapolis. can we agree that it was a better return on investment than some federal spending programs? tonight we congratulate president carter on a long life and the milestone that takes place now just moments away. that is our broadcast for this thursday evening. thank you so very much for being here with us and good night from our nbc news headquarters here in new york.
. all eyes on bob mueller as those watching for his highly-anticipated report standing by anxiously waiting to kick it into high gear. >> u.s. donald trump the turns over foreign policy in one tweet. he says the u.s. should recognize israel's authority over the golan heights. >> a warning that combat readiness has been hurt by troop deployment at the southern border. good morning, everybody. it is friday, march 22nd. i'm yasmin vossoughian alongside david gura.