tv The 11th Hour With Brian Williams MSNBC May 31, 2019 1:00am-2:00am PDT
she makes her case to win back democratic voters in the industrial midwest. you can be there, too. full details on how to attend on the website. all in.msnbc.com. that's all this evening. tonight, the president admits russia helped him get elected before taking it back. he wonders how the courts will allow his impeachment not realizing it's not up to them. a defensive day at the white house, this day after mueller broke his silence. meanwhile, 51 members of congress now support impeachment. the pressure on pelosi is growing but no party consensus on whether it's the path to salvation or to ruin. and the central warning from robert mueller, the systematic attack we're under from russia. did the administration make any moves to make sure our next election is clean? our guests tonight will spell out the clear and present danger. "the 11th hour" on a thursday evening starts right now.
well, good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. day 861 of the trump administration, and on this day after robert mueller broke his silence, not surprisingly the president attacked robert mueller and all those who have worked for him. the president started his day with this rather surprising quote. "russia, russia, russia, that's all you heard at the beginning of this witch hunt hoax. and now russia has disappeared because i had nothing to do with russia helping me to get elected." interesting wording there. let's give him that. quickly walked back by the president on the south lawn in a predeparture flurry of misinformation. >> do you believe that russia helped you get elect kwder. >> no, russia did not help me get elected. you know who got me elected? you know who got me elected? i got me elected.
russia didn't help me at all. russia, if anything, i think helped the other side. >> they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the clinton campaign. >> he said essentially you're innocent. i'm innocent of all charges, and, you know, the thing that nobody brings up, there was no crime. >> if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. >> there was no charge because he had no information. >> under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. >> so not long after trump made his comments, his steadfastly loyal attorney general bill barr held the line again today and was critical of robert mueller in an interview taped for cbs news. specifically he questioned mueller's choice, what mueller
saw as his obligation not to make a decision on obstruction. >> i personally felt he could have reached a decision. the opinion says you can't indict a president while he's in office, but he could have reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity, but he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained. when he didn't make a decision, the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein and i felt it was necessary for us as the heads of the department to reach that decision. >> trump has also renewed his allegations that the former special counsel was a biased investigator. describing him as the "highly conflicted robert mueller." trump later elaborated on that, retelling the false story that mueller "came to the oval office along with other potential candidates seeking to be named the director of the fbi. he had already been in that position for 12 years. i told him no. the next day he was named special counsel. a total conflict of interest."
trump wasn't finished. he later tried to drive that point home as the cameras were rolling. >> i think he is a total conflicted person. i think mueller is a true never trumper. he's somebody that dislikes donald trump. he's somebody that didn't get a job that he requested, that he wanted very badly and then he was appointed. >> however, there's this, the mueller report includes testimony from white house adviser steve bannon saying that he "recalled telling the president that the purported conflicts were ridiculous and that none could come close to justifying precluding mueller from serving as special counsel." the report goes on, "although the white house thought about beseeming mueller to become director again, he did not come in looking for the job." mueller made it clear yesterday he wants his report to speak for him and he does not want to testify in the person before congress. a lot of democrats nonetheless are pressing for him to appear.
and according to "the daily beast," they're now being joined by some in trump's inner circle, a number of whom have been eager to declare mueller's case closed. sam stein, who joins us in just a moment, reports some of trump's closest advisers want mueller to be subjected to "conservative lawmakers' questions about the conduct and outcome of his investigation." meanwhile, according to nbc news, 50 house democrats and 1 republican are now in favor of starting an impeachment inquiry into the president. today trump was asked about that. >> do you think they're going to impeach you? >> i don't see how. they can because they're possibly allowed, although i can't imagine the courts allowing it. i've never gotten into it. i never thought that would even be possible to use that word. to me it's a dirty word, the word impeach. it's a dirty, filthy, disgusting word and it had nothing to do with me. >> there you have it.
here with us on our leadoff discussion, joyce vance, who spent 25 years as a federal prosecutor. a.b. stoddard, associate editor at real clear politics and the aforementioned sam stein, politics editor for "the daily beast." sam, you get to go first because your name was invoked. >> thank you. >> where do we stand tonight after a day of some epic falsehoods on the south lawn? >> it's a good question. with respect to mueller testifying, i believe that we are getting to a place where basically a good majority of each side of the political aisle now are pining for him to come to the hill to answer more questions. mueller, of course, said that he wanted the report to speak for itself and has resisted privately to come to the hill in part because he's worried about it being a political circus. today when my colleague and i went asking around to some of the members of the legal team for president trump, they had done a 180. prior to now president trump, of
course, said he didn't want mueller to testify publicly on the hill. the standing line from the white house was that the case was closed and it was time to move on. but we talked with rudy giuliani today, among other people, john dowd, the president's former lawyer, both of them now want mueller to be dragged up to the hill. the possibility of a subpoena was mentioned. and they want it because they believe that conservative lawmakers on the hill can ask him pointed questions about the origins of his probe, about the composition of his team and that they can do effectively to muddy the waters after what was seen pretty universally as a very difficult critical press statement that mueller gave on wednesday. so it's a dynamic situation, but i wouldn't be surprised if we saw a groundswell of more support for mueller coming to the hill to testify eventually. >> a couple of things here just to back up sam's point. here is a bit of mr. hannity from tonight. >> robert mueller, i am telling you, is scared to death to testify.
why? because he'd have to answer real tough questions from people like congressman jim jordan, congressman mark meadows, congressman devin nunes. >> so, a.b. stoddard, that is the state of play tonight as we come on the air and then there is the matter of mr. barr. i'm going to play another bit of the interview in alaska with cbs news. this is about how barr responds to the current criticism. >> we live in a hyperpartisan age where people no longer really pay attention to the substance of what was said but to who says it and what side they're on and what its political ramifications are. i'm going to make the decision based on the law and the facts. i just think it goes with being the attorney general in a hyperpartisan period of time. >> so, a.b., you heard the man, it goes with the territory. nothing to see her would be another takeaway from that. yet, we had a former fed on this broadcast last night who was appointed by barr to her seat
who called him straight up a liar. >> this whole tour that bill barr has done from as soon as he was confirmed as attorney general from the presentation of the summary of the mueller report to the press conference of the release of the mueller report, to his fox news interview to his cbs interview has revealed that he is intentionally -- i thought it was interesting the words he chose. he said people are looking at political ramifications and not substance. he's intentionally not giving us substance on why he believes that the investigators have to be investigated. but he's intentionally using provocative language to produce a political ramification that pleases the president and casts aspersions on the investigators, including mr. mueller, with whom he went on the air with cbs precisely to contradict the day following mueller's public statement.
he is talking about spying. he is talking about people -- may have not committed treason in the legal sense. maybe they thought they were doing the right thing. he has -- before he's collected a set of facts cast doubt on this process that mueller said yesterday was done in a fair way with integrity. he is absolutely playing a political game. he is not protecting the department of justice. he's not protecting bob mueller. he's not backing him up. and i think it's astounding to see him on a press tour that continued from alaska because of bob mueller's surprise statement. he wanted to get on top of it the day after and contradict him and say i think he could have made a call on obstruction when he knows what the special counsel said yesterday was the entire frame of the olc guidelines, is you don't taint a president with a charge or even -- there is no fairness when he can't defend himself.
the entire criminal justice system is separate. it's only remedied in the congress and can't even begin. mueller basically could have never said i do think he's guilty of obstruction but maybe we won't charge him. what barr said today, he knows better and he absolutely intentionally just contradicting bob mueller. i thought was staggering. >> joyce vance, as someone who has devoted your adult life to the law, as someone who teaches law to law students currently, can you remind our viewers as ever you wish how far out of plum for the job of attorney general this looks? >> it's, i think, very difficult to convey how far out of whack this is just because we've walked down this path one step at a time and the norms have receded to such a great distance that i think it's difficult for us to remember what it looked
like when an attorney general was loyal to the people who worked for them and backed them up. instead, this attorney general has accused his people of spying and refused to back them up. when an attorney general would have never violated the clear notion that an attorney general doesn't stand up at the podium in the justice department and lie about the content of a special counsel's report, which is what this attorney general did, giving the president his headline "no collusion, no obstruction," when, in fact, that is not what the mueller report found. so i fear that the damage that's being done to the justice department, which, of course, can operate to keep our communities safe only because people believe in its integrity, that that damage will be long term, it will be sustained and there will be a long road back for the justice department when this is over because in large part of what this attorney general has done. >> sam, you've hard it in the last two answers. and say nothing of people who knew barr back when.
>> right. >> and were excited about his appointment and are rather amazed today at how pliant and loyal he has proved to be to one client. i imagine the folks on the trump team are very happy at his selection. >> well, it's difficult to remember -- it wasn't that long ago, but it's difficult to remember when barr was nominated there was a massive sense of relief among the legal establishment and even among some democrats on capitol hill. >> yep. >> at the time matt whitaker, who had been sessions' chief of staff, was in that acting role and there was an assumption that he was going to be a sycophant for trump and do his bidding, and it turns out that every appear applied to matt whitaker's tenure has been actually realized by bill barr, who was considered an institutionalist who has become
perhaps trump's best defender in the administration. and i remember shortly after barr went out and summarized the mueller report we began asking people in and around the president how they felt about the job he was doing and they were ectatic, ectatic at the interference he was running on the president's behalf. they had assumed this was going to be the role that jeff sessions had played, but jeff sessions actually took a far more different approach, a far more hands off approach than bill barr has. and the question i guess going forward is, is there any remedy to this? remember, barr was supposed to be called, was supposed to go in front of the house judiciary committee, but he declined to do so on the basis that they were going to have lawyers on the committee ask the question. at the time that was a big deal but because we live in this sort of hyper news cycle, that story seems like it was eons ago. so i don't know if there is a house remedy that democrats can summon to push back against what barr is actually doing now. >> joyce, back over to you for a question i saw you ask, at least rhetorically on social media
yesterday that people will be left with for a good long time, what if mueller had spoken first? >> there is no reason that the comments we heard from special counsel mueller yesterday could not have been the american people's first introduction to what was after all the special counsel's report. so i think we're left with this really plaguing question of why we heard bill barr's inaccurate comments. i think at this point we have all decided what the answer to that question is and we should all be troubled by the fact that mueller's comment, which we heard yesterday, they were fair, they were accurate and we were kept from hearing them for two months. >> a.b., this is an outgrowth of a discussion we had on the broadcast last night, that the mueller report was perhaps written and produced for an attention span that no longer exists in this country. this is a hell of a piece of writing in the current "atlantic." this is by ken white. "mueller is a man out of time. this is the age of alternatively factual tweets and sound bites. he's a by the book throw-back
who expects americans to read and absorb carefully worded 400-page report. has he met us? his high standards sometimes manifest as touching naivete." fair? >> he's an honest man of integrity who might be from another time but might have been expecting us sort of in a moment of national emergency to invest time in the 448 pages. >> imagine that, yeah. >> so what i saw in his public comments yesterday was the realization, and i think he was driven there by several reasons, i think he wanted to contradict barr, which follows his initial two letters, saying that the attorney general created confusion about the context of his report -- the contents. i think he wanted to say to the american people you haven't read this report and this concerted
attack by the russians is really, really dangerous and it will happen again. that's why he started his comments with that and finished repeating the same line about how it deserves the attention of every american. i hope more americans will read this, but perhaps his expectations were too high, that many people would read it. i think they took bill barr's word and his assessment and thought they could go on with their lives. >> sam, last word. >> yeah, i mean, i almost feel like it's understating it. you know, bob mueller could have summarized his point in a 280-character tweet, and even if he did that trump would have just contradicted it. i mean, look what happened this morning. donald trump admitted that russia helped him get elected. in a tweet. he did it twice because he wanted to correct a separate part of the tweet, but he repeated it, and then minutes later he was in front of cameras denying he ever said such a thing. we live in this weird dystopian reality that can't accommodate a mueller report, regardless of the length it's in. just to a.b.'s point, it's true that mueller emphasized the russian interference part first, and i think for good reason, perhaps that's because it is the most existential threat in the
coming election. i'm struck by the notion that what seems so out of the realm of possibility, that a presidential candidate would willingly accept a foreign power's interference has now become for a swath of the country basically accepted. it's not just trump's tweet this week, but over the last week rudy giuliani has been openly courting help from ukraine to take down joe biden, so we are living in a post-mueller world in more ways than one, i guess. >> let's leave, shall we, detailed accounts for our grandchildren of this era where everything mattered and yet nothing mattered at the same time. on that philosophical note, our thanks to three very smart people for starting us off tonight. to joyce vance, to a.b. stoddard, to sam stein. >> thanks, brian. >> thanks to you all. coming up for us, following the special counsel swan song, the democratic drumbeat towards impeachment proceedings growing
stronger. some believe it's the path to salvation. others believe it's the path to ruin for the party. and later, that warning from mueller. we've been talking about multiple systematic efforts by the russians to attack us. did anyone act on that today? two experts are standing by in the field for us as "the 11th hour" is just getting started on this thursday night.
advanced voice solutions. wifi to keep everyone connected. video monitoring. that's huge. did you guys know we did all this stuff? no. i'm not even done yet. wow. business tv. cloud apps and support. comcast business goes beyond at&t. start with internet and voice for just $59.90 a month. it's everything a small business owner needs. comcast business. beyond fast. there was no crime. you know, high crimes and not with or or, it's high crimes and misdemeanors. there was no high crime and there was no misdemeanor, so how
do you impeach based on that? >> so we're good. the impeachment debate among democrats is heating up nonetheless, following robert mueller's public remarks yesterday. so far at least 51 members of the house now favor starting an impeachment inquiry against president trump. the number includes one republican, justin amash of michigan, nearly a dozen members of the house judiciary committee, notably. "the new york times" reports today supporters of the inquiry argue they are not necessarily seeking to remove trump from office. "opening an investigation, they say, could increase democratic chances of winning court orders to require compliance with house subpoenas, but others are wary, saying it would be politically risky. impeachment implies an effort to remove the president from the office and mr. trump is primed to try to exploit any such effort politically." we're happy that with us back again or anita kumar, white house correspondent and
associate editor over at politico, and here in the studio, jeremy peters, political reporter for "the new york times." good evening to you both. jeremy, i'd like to begin by showing you a voter who was interviewed in the pretty much rock ribbed conservative congressional district of mr. amash out in michigan. she was interviewed about the mueller report. >> i was surprised to hear there was anything negative in the mueller report at all about president trump. i hadn't heard that before and i mainly listened to conservative news, and i hadn't heard anything negative about that report and president trump had been exonerated. >> jeremy, that woman would be an american. she lives in america and she has a good many americans just like her. so if the standard for the democrats is an overwhelming national agreement that this needs to happen, how far do you reckon we are from that?
>> right. i would also add not only is she an american, but she's probably a voter, too. >> oh, yeah. who cares enough to be at her local town hall. >> exactly. these -- there is nothing like this that has ever happened in american politics, american political history before, brian. and by that i mean we have not had a major national trauma like an impeachment proceeding unfold in this new media culture where you have this twin phenomena of a president who is singularly able to drive and shift the narrative of the news cycle unlike anyone who has ever held the office before and a news media apparatus that is loyal to him that will defend whatever he does. and that really, i think, changes the equation in terms of how americans look at an impeachment. whether they see it as valid even. and i often think to myself as
like a thought exercise of just -- to illustrate just how much things have changed. what would have happened if the massacre happened while donald trump was president and sean hannity was on the air at fox? how would americans have processed that? would they have thought that it really even happened? and i think that -- those are the stakes. that's what you need to think about going into something like a national trauma that the impeachment would be. >> wow. i'm old enough to remember that story and lieutenant kelly and the scars it left. anita, is there any way a reporter like yourself can find out rationally in that west wing how great a fear of impeachment really does exist? >> i don't know. it is a tough thing to say because, you know, they do -- we've talked about this before. the president and his aides and more importantly his campaign really do push that they see this as a political win for them. i know that sounds kind of
absurd, right? but they're banking on the fact that there are the numbers. there are literally not enough republicans. i mean, you mentioned there is one lone republican out there and look at the reception he's gotten in the last week or so since he came out and called for impeachment. i mean, not just the trump, you know, president trump's allies but just republicans. they are, you know, mocking him and saying that there's no one else that's going to be like him, right? he's probably going to get primaried. he may not even be in office coming up here. so it's just a -- they are banking on this, that they -- that the democrats don't have the votes. and so at the moment they feel okay about it. now, that could change. it was very interesting to hear what robert mueller said yesterday, but, of course, the talking points from the white house and the campaign were still, eh, it's still nothing, right? there is still nothing there when clearly things had changed. >> all right.
on that note, both of our guests have agreed to stay with us. we're going to fit in a break. and when we come back, we'll look at the what the 2020 candidates are saying about what the president today called that dirty, filthy, disgusting word. if you have medicare, listen up. medicare alone only covers 80% of your cost, leaving you to pay the rest. changes to medicare are no laughing matter. if you don't know the plans available now,
you might end up with a doctor you're not so comfortable with, or even worse, being forced to pay thousands in medical expenses due to coverage limitations. that'll be how much? understanding all the options, let's face it, it can be downright confusing. that's why i love healthmarkets, your insurance marketplace. they search thousands of plans from leading insurance companies to find a plan that's right for you. plans that have prescription drug coverage, dental and vision care, and that offer extra benefits you may not even know were available. some plans may eliminate your out of pocket cost like copays and deductibles, and there's even plans with no monthly premium. they can find you a plan to let you keep your doctors. i know that's important for me. you may also qualify for special subsidies that lower your prescription drug costs. healthmarkets doesn't just work for one insurance company. they work to help you, and they do it all for free. hi, i'm dr. thomas stackhouse. it's a new medicare year and that means more changes and more confusion. many people may worry about the high cost of
medical care and prescription drugs. the key to maintaining your health and saving money on your healthcare cost is finding the right plan for you. don't go it alone. make sure to explore all of your options to find the right plan for your needs. having helped enroll people in millions of policies with an a plus customer satisfaction rating, you can trust healthmarkets. you can enroll today. call healthmarkets now for free help. it's easy to find the medicare plan that saves you money, so you can enjoy more of the things you love. call now to take advantage of this free service. now is the time to update your coverage or enroll for the first time. call healthmarkets now. call the number on your screen call this number now.
accountable. >> act now or lose our democracy forever. that is the choice before us. >> i think the right thing right now is to hold this president accountable for his actions. >> it's a point of each one of us who swore an oath to the constitution saying that is not permissible for a president of the united states. >> i think it would be crazy not to do it, to be quite honest, we have to go out and try to get the facts. >> an increasing number, as you just saw, of the 2020 democratic candidates, and there are about 2020 of the democrats, now supporting impeachment in the wake of robert mueller's remarks on the russia investigation. by our own nbc news count, 10 of the 23 candidates are now on board. more have publicly expressed they're leaning in that direction. we're back with our guests for our double jeopardy round, anita kumar and jeremy peters. anita, this has a slight edge to it, but let me proffer the following.
what is the real cost to a booker or a beto or a hickenlooper or a gillibrand to come out for impeachment? i could argue it will be the cheapest thing they do all week. what's the consequence to them? >> right. i mean, you're exactly right. obviously, though, the democratic party is split. the country is split on this. clearly leaders in the democratic party, nancy pelosi to name one, don't -- don't want to do this right now. so, i mean, they could lose support, but you're right, those are the ones that are, you know, polling so low they have to do something. i don't know that it could hurt them at this point, right? they're just trying to get noticed at this point.
and they're hearing from their base. they're hearing from people when they're out there, people are talking to them, pushing them, and you've got to say that robert mueller's words yesterday, whether he meant them or not, really did open the door. you saw several of them say just listening to what he said, he said there was another remedy, you know, in your court -- the ball's in your court now, congress. he didn't really say that but he kind of did. >> and jeremy for you, i have a reading from -- first read from nbc news today. this is very interesting. "if you wanted a taste of what the 2020 democratic presidential race might look like if congress goes down the impeachment rabbit hole, you got it yesterday after mueller's statement. the 2020 field took second or third stage. impeachment most likely would real gate the democratic race to the backburner and freeze the contest until afterward." i'm tempted to ask you if that would make the democrats focus plainly on electability, and we all know what most democrats answer. >> well, this is a problem, brian, that i hear a lot of democrats talking about privately. democratic candidates for president are not breaking through with voters right now.
now, it's early so there are -- >> there's limited oxygen, right? >> there's limited oxygen, but guess who is sucking up 2/3 of that oxygen on most days? and that's an issue. it's, of course, galvanizing for the left because they're then reminded of how much they want to remove him from office, but in a situation like an impeachment, i think donald trump's ability to reframe the narrative, to shift -- look what he did with the mueller report, for example. before any of us had read it, we had the four-page statement describing what was in it. what did he come out and do? i'm innocent. no collusion. no obstruction. 100 exonerated. that wasn't true. this report said this does not exonerate you. you know what? it set him up to have the advantage in the court of american public opinion and his approval rating actually went up after that. so i don't think that we can assume an impeachment would do the democrats any good whatsoever. >> so often by doing their jobs good reporters leave us only with more questions, as has been the case tonight with anita
and i will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple systematic efforts to interfere in our election. and that allegation deserves the attention of every american. >> and, of course, in our modern age it didn't get the attention today of every american as it deserves. our nbc news political team highlights some of the consequences of russian interference writing, "it produced hillary versus bernie chaos entering the democratic
convention in philadelphia. it helped launch scores of stories looking into internal clinton communications from hacked john podesta emails. and it aided part of donald trump's closing message, with him mentioning the word wikileaks some 140 times in the final months of the general election, a race decided by 80,000 votes in three states. the lack of urgency and attention to that interference remains, in many ways, the real scandal." before departing the white house for colorado this morning, the president asked what's being done to stop future interference. he said, of course, obama did nothing to combat interference in 2016 and then he added this. >> we are doing a lot and we're trying to do paper ballots as a backup system as much as possible. because going to good old fashioned paper in this modern age is the best way to do it. >> so there you have it, and here with us to talk about it tonight, michael mcfaul, former
u.s. ambassador to russia. his most recent book is entitled "from cold war to hot peace: an american ambassador in putin's russia." and malcolm unanimous, special operations, homeland security, 35 years working in the field. he's also the author of "the plot to destroy democracy: how putin and his spies are undermining america and dismantling the west." both timely books making these leading experts to talk to. mr. ambassador, i'd like to begin with you. you heard robert mueller yesterday. what ran through your mind as you did? >> just the way you set it up, brian. i mean, the other parts of what's legal and not you've been talking about, but he began and he ended with the fact that russia attacked us in 2016, they violated our sovereignty in a multiple-pronged attack designed to influence the course of that presidential election. and so far, despite what the president just said now, we've done next to nothing to prevent that in 2020, and i think moving
forward we have to continue to remind your viewers and the american people to put pressure on the trump administration and the u.s. congress to enact the legislation that would protect that vote. >> and malcolm, when most people hear that, i think they throw up their hands, they don't know what to do, though they're justifiably scared about the intrusion into our lives and the tinkering with our election process. what is the danger to you? and add to that, is it that the president doesn't only share the urgency, he doesn't share the problem? >> well, he certainly doesn't share the problem because he fundamentally does not believe that anything happened in 2016 because he has tied russian interference to his own legitimacy. and that's valid for him because there are some questions which do crop up.
robert mueller made it eminently clear that this attack on the united states, which -- which we saw three years ago, is most likely going to happen again. so that being said, the forces in the united states who could do something about it, department of homeland security, national security agency, state and local law enforcement organizations with some cyber capability, they're left on their own because there is no force of leadership from the president. >> mr. ambassador, we have been led to believe through reporting, especially a piece in "the new york times," that the last secretary of homeland security, secretary nielsen, was waived away, was told not to mention russian interference to the president of the united states. you know more about the potential than the rest of us, but we've certainly been led to believe that on top of social media, on top of our elections, they also have a thorough reach
into things like our power grids and -- and wheels of our american life that they can turn and control almost by whim. >> they have tremendous cyber capabilities, that's right. and you just widened the aperture of other things we need to be worried about in addition to our campaigns and our elections. but i think we have to stop waiting for the administration to do it. in fact, brian, there are four things, very concrete acts that the u.s. congress could pass. the deter act, which ties new sanctions if there is interference. the pave act, which provides for those paper ballots that the president just talked about. the fire act, just introduced a couple of weeks ago which -- not just allows but makes all campaigns have to report on foreign activity that they have. and then the honest ads act. so there are four acts. fire, pave, deter and honest ads act. they're all drafted. to me it's just a no-brainer.
those acts need to be passed now before the 2020 election. >> malcolm, give us a consumer's guide. at the end of this broadcast, you and i go home, we're just a guy with a phone, we're scrolling through whatever we scroll through, social media, whatever our favorites are. tell us how folks with their phone at home at night are affected by the russian reach into just take social media. is it visible to us? is it invisible to us? what would we notice? what would we not know we're being hit with russian interference? >> well, it's extreme visible, and the mueller report made clear that russia's mindset into the united states public, really, they reached 129 million voters through their disinformation warfare campaign, which was then amplified by the platform that it was on, which
is facebook, twitter, instagram and others. so you don't initially know whether you're reading something that's true or false. for example, hillary clinton stumbles and has a brain disorder. that was a piece of propaganda which was fashioned by an american citizen, but then was amplified through this enormous cyber mega phone that the russians had put in place, team trump had put in place and it became a real story. the biggest problem is, to a certain extent, us, the news media. we are the medium in which false stories grow, and so once the media starts learning to police itself and not jump out, you know, after every rabbit that pops up out of a hole and chases it, then, you know, and we clear that with, you know, third-party organizations or through our own research and we realize when we are being taken for a ride with real information that may just be -- have a false basis and may be just a vehicle for the news
media to be -- to be a mega phone for more distraction. >> and mike mcfaul, if you're watching on a flat screen -- flat screen tv in the basement of the kremlin, are you interested when donald trump comes out on the south line prior to boarding marine one and goes after the chief prosecutor in this case, the special counsel robert mueller? >> you're loving it. you know, this is what they wanted. they wanted to sow division in america. they wanted this polarization. this weakness that we see now abroad. and, you know, they think that this has been a very good thing, in terms of us fighting against each other. that means we're not talking about the russian threat. that's exactly what they -- >> right. >> -- had anticipated and that's what they have received so far. we've got to start pushing back on that. >> gentlemen, we knew by inviting you on this would be the sobering segment of the evening. you lived up to expectations, michael mcfaul, malcolm unanimous, thank you, as always,
for coming on our broadcast tonight. another break for us. coming up, trump calls it a well-meaning gesture. others calling it a disgrace. the latest on the stunning order issued by the white house, at least an official inside the white house that in the process shamed once again a great american name.
audible members know listening has the power to change us make us better parents, better leaders, better people. and there's no better place to listen than audible. with audible you get a credit good for any audiobook and exclusive fitness and wellness programs. and now, you'll also get two audible originals: titles exclusively produced for audible. automatically roll your credits over to the next month if you don't use them, and if you don't like a book just swap it for free. enjoy 100% ad free listening in the car, on your phone or any connected device.
and when you switch a device pick up right where you left off. with our commitment free guarantee, there's never been a better time to start listening to audible. the most inspiring minds, the most compelling stories, the best place to listen. to start your free 30-day trial, text listen5 to 500500 today. ♪ do you think it's fair to the sailors of the "john mccain" that they were banned from hearing you speak simply because they serve -- >> i don't know what happened. i wasn't involved. i would not have done that. i was very angry with john mccain because he killed health care. i was not a big fan of john mccain in any way, shape or form. to me, john mccain, i wasn't a fan, but i would never do a thing like that. now, somebody did it because they thought i didn't like him, okay, and they were well-meaning, i will say.
>> here's something to think about. john mccain's mother, roberta mccain, is 107 years old. she can hear this. she is aware of the president's attacks on her son. she's an admiral's widow and an admiral's daughter-in-law and the mother of a p.o.w. the three generations of mccains in the u.s. navy for whom the "uss john mccain" was named. "the wall street journal" was first to report on emails exchanged between the white house and the navy ahead of trump's trip to japan. a copy of the email obtained by cnbc reads, ""uss john mccain" needs to be out of sight. according to the journal to comply, a tarp was hung over the ship's name ahead of the president's trip and sailors were directed to remove any coverings from the ship that bore its name. you can see the trump in question taken during trump's trip. sailors aboard the "mccain" were
apparently also barred from the president's event. senator mccain's death changed nothing about how the president talks about it. it all stems from mccain's thumbs down vote that upheld obamacare and coverage of pre-existing conditions. his daughter, meghan mccain, responded to trump's attacks on "the view" today. >> i will say, the president's actions have consequences, and when you repeatedly are attacking my father and war heros, it creates a culture in the military where people are clearly fearful to show, you know, my father's name in one way or another. it's impossible to go through the grief process when my father, who has been dead ten months, is constantly in the news cycle because the president is so obsessed with the fact that he's never going to be a great man like he was. >> as for who might have been responsible for this, the top democrat on the senate armed services committee has called for an investigation along with,
notably, republican martha mcsally, who happens to be a u.s. air force combat veteran, also happens to sit on that committee and filled john mccain's seat in the senate after his death. another break for us. and coming up, we don't get to report this often, but someone last seen in the oval office is reportedly now in a prison camp. the story coming up when we come back.
last thing before we go tonight is a reminder of who we're dealing with in north korea. the reuters news agency is reporting that the north has executed kim hyok chol, its special envoy to the u.s., because kim jong-un apparently blames his foreign ministry for the collapse of the summit with trump three months ago. but wait, there's more. they cite a south korean newspaper that kim yong chol who had been secretary of state mike pompeo's counterpart is said to be subjected to forced labor and idealogical education. that can leave a mark. you might remember him. he's the guy who had been in the oval office. he delivered the giant letter to a grinning president of the united states. they say the north korean leader is believed to be carrying out a massive purge to divert attention away from internal turmoil and discontent, according to the newspaper. they say at least one other negotiator and an interpreter
have been sent to prison camps, and don't buy stock in kim jong-un's sister either. she is apparently lying low in quotes since the summit. just as a reminder of how this north korean regime talks, i want to read for you a commentary from a north korean paper with the reminder that all north korean media is state-run. so imagine you're reading this if you're kim jong-un's sister knowing he already executed your own uncle. and we quote. "acting like one is revering the leader in front of others but dreaming of something else when one turns around is an anti-party, anti-revolutionary act that has thrown away the moral fidelity toward the leader and such people will not avoid the stern judgement of the revolution. ." interesting times these are in
north korea. that is our broadcast for this thursday night. thank you so much for being here with us and good night from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. > fact checking presid trump's response to robert mueller. we're taking a look at how the president's latest attack compares to the special counsel public statement. >> bipartisan break through. two different lawmakers find common ground. president trump distances himself from a report that the white house had the war ship "uss john s. mccain" moved out of sight during his recent visit to japan. now he's calling it an exaggeration and. quote fake news. good morning, everybody. it is friday, may 31st. i'm