Covid19 has now killed more than 150,000 americans. The number is staggering. But the president declared large portions of the country to be coronafree, and he also laments why he doesnt have as high an Approval Rating as dr. Fauci. Again, we have passed the 150,000 mark for deaths due to the coronavirus. But first, a staggering interview from National Political reporter for axios, Jonathan Swan. You just saw a little bit of it. He sat down with President Trump for axios on hbo, where, for the very first time, a Reporter Presses him on the story that intelligence showed russia was paying the taliban bounties to kill u. S. Soldiers in afghanistan. There have been a lot of people who have tried to ask the president about this, but in a briefing or on his way to a helicopter, he always is able to blow them off. Here, the president is cornered. And Jonathan Swan does not stop. Heres the full exchange, and it is very revealing. Its been widely reported that the u. S. Has intelligence indicating that russia paid bounties, or offered to pay bounties, to taliban fighters to kill american soldiers. Right, right. You had a phone call with Vladimir Putin on july 23rd. Did you bring up this issue . No, that was a phone call to discuss other things, and frankly, thats an issue that many people said was fake news. Who said it was fake news . I think a lot of people. If you look at some of the wonderful folks from the Bush Administration, some of them, not any friends of mine, were saying that its a fake issue, but a lot of people said its a fake issue. There was intelligence well, we had a call talking about nuclear proliferation, which is a very big subject where they would like to do something and so would i. We discussed numerous things. We did not discuss that, no. And youve never discussed it did with him. I have never discussed it with him, no. I would. I have no problem with it but you dont believe the intelligence. But you dont its because you dont believe the intelligence. Thats why. Everything you know, its interesting. Nobody brings up china. They always bring up russia, russia, russia. If we can do something with russia in terms of nuclear proliferation, which is a very big problem, bigger problem than Global Warming, a much bigger problem than Global Warming in terms of the real world, that would be a great thing. No, it never reached my desk. You know why . Because they didnt think intelligence they didnt think it was real. It was in your written brief, though. They didnt think it was worthy of i wouldnt mind if it reached my desk, i would have done something about it. It never reached my desk because do you read your written brief . Yeah, i read a lot. They like to say i dont read. I read a lot. I comprehend extraordinarily well, probably better than anybody that youve interviewed in a long time. I read a lot. I spend a lot of time at meetings. Usually its once a day or at least two or three times a week, intelligence briefings, spoken about india, talking about with the problems with china, talking about so many different elements of the world. The world is a very angry place, if you look, all over the world. We call up, i get i see 22 soldiers were killed in india, with china, fighting over the border. Its been raging for many, many decades, and theyve been fighting and back and forth. I have so many briefings on so many different countries. But this one didnt reach my desk. The reason i say this is, even if you dont believe this particular piece of intelligence and there is dispute, no doubt, there is dispute in the Intelligence Community about it your former john nicholson, former head of forces in afghanistan said, when he was working for you, that russia is supplying weapons to the taliban. Isnt that enough to challenge putin over the killings of u. S. Soldiers . Well, we supplied weapons when they were fighting russia, too. You know, when they were fighting with the taliban in afghanistan thats a different era. Well, im just saying, yes but how im just saying, we did that, too. I dont know. I didnt ask nicholson about that. He was there for a long time, didnt have Great Success because you know, he was there before me, then ultimately, i made a change. You surely heard that, right . I mean, its well known in the Intelligence Community that theyre arming the taliban, russia. I dont know. When you say arming, is the taliban paying or russia is supplying weapons and money to the taliban. I have heard that, but its never reached again, its never reached my desk. I mean, he said it on the record when he was in hey, russia doesnt want anything to do with afghanistan. Let me just tell you about russia. Russia used to be a thing called the soviet union. Because of afghanistan, they went bankrupt. They became russia, just so you do understand, okay . The last thing that russia wants to do is get too much involved with afghanistan. They tried that once. It didnt work out. Wow. Jonathan swan, great job. So many different ways there. The president seemed extremely uncomfortable and didnt have an answer for you. Also, russia was supplying weapons. We did that, too. We did that, too. Where have we heard that before . I can tell you where weve heard that before, during the campaign. It was december 18th, 2015, when joe said to donald trump on an interview on morning joe, but president putin, he kills journalists, donald. And donald responds, well, we kill people, too. Well show that to you later. But the bottom line is, this is his goto answer when he is cornered. Tell us more about the interview. Well, i mean, you saw it there. And i think its important. Im glad you playedcontext, bec ways, the most shocking part of that clip is actually not the first part where he admits for the first time on the record that he hasnt raised the issue of the bounties with Vladimir Putin. Thats the least shocking part of that call, because actually, frankly, you know, you could have a debate within policy circles about whether its the appropriate thing, i mean, that there are dissenting opinions within the Intelligence Community about this intelligence. It certainly is serious intelligence, being taken seriously by the allies, and there is a very good argument for why the president should raise it with putin. But the second question is actually more important, which is, fine, you dont believe this intelligence, or youre skeptical of it. Lets try and take the most goodfaith terminatiinterpretat. But you know that russia has been supplying weapons and money to the taliban because the man who ran your forces in afghanistan, john nicholson, under your administration, said this on the record when he worked for you. And for him to say then, well, i didnt i dont know if ive heard about this, never reached my desk, and by the way, we gave them weapons, too. I mean, like in a different era. I just honestly, it was one of the most shocking ive covered President Trump for five years. I think its one of the most shocking exchanges ive ever had with him. Hey, jonathan, its willie. It was staggering to watch him bend over backwards to side with the dissenting opinion on the intelligence, in other words, not even to consider the possibility that the intelligence, yes, did reach his desk in the president s daily brief, as you pointed out, could be true and its something to consider and its something to confront Vladimir Putin with. We all knew and we all assumed that he hadnt brought it up on the call. You confirmed that from the president. But could you be clear for our viewers again, as weve reported over the last month or so, what exactly was in the president s daily brief . What did reach his desk . Whether or not he read it is another matter, but it did, in fact, reach his desk. Well, i should be clear, i havent seen what was in the written daily intelligence briefing. Its been widely reported that it was in that document. Right. But its not one call with Vladimir Putin. Its eight. Its eight phone calls since that intelligence reportedly was in the written document. And you know, you made a really important point as you addressed that, which is, its not so much, okay, fine, you can come to this from a goodfaith position and say, you know, im a bit skeptical about this. Should we really take the word of captured taliban fighters . Are they maybe feeding us disinformation, et cetera, et cetera. Thats a reasonable position. But what you saw in that clip is a lack of desire to even investigate the claim, and on its face, dismissing it as fake news when, you know, the pentagons not dismissing it in that way. Theyre taking it seriously. Theyre saying we dont yet have evidence linking it to an explicit death of a u. S. Soldier, but theyve described it as very worrisome intelligence. Then you could just see, this does not compute with his world view in the way that he thinks about putin and russia. So, i think, again, its a very revealing exchange on multiple levels. And i ask this in all seriousness, Jonathan Swan did you see that he computed that this was extremely revealing and that he was cornered and seemed almost confused or in some ways had nowhere to go, when usually he can quickly find some corner to run to in his words, in his answers . What was his body language like . What was it like after the interview . Did he understand how revealing, and quite frankly, bad this was for him . No, i dont think he felt confused or anything of the sort. I think he felt that he was expressing his own natural opinions, and i didnt get any sense that he felt particularly cornered or that he was revealing anything of great import. Wow. It was almost as natural as breathing. Jonathan lamire, lets bring you in on this conversation. Obviously, youve been covering this story for the last month or so, along with the rest of us, as you cover the white house behind you there. Just, to me, a staggering exchange, what Jonathan Swan elicited from the president there, calling this report from his intelligence agencies that intelligence viewed as so important that it reached the president s daily brief, which not everything does, as you know, that he dismissed it as fake news and that he twisted himself in knots to take the other side, that it was not real, that a lot of people doubted it, the people in the Bush Administration doubted it as well. The president clearly, clearly does not want to confront Vladimir Putin on something any other president would. Reporter thats right, willie. When this story first broke, it was so explosive that the white house shielded the president from reporters for about two weeks. We had no opportunities to ask him any sort of questions whatsoever, you know, despite efforts on the south lawn, on air force one, even at news conferences where he would not take questions as he customarily would. So, kudos to Jonathan Swan for this interview. It is, indeed, very revealing. And you hit it on the head here. This is a reflexive instinct for the president , first of all, to dismiss stories from news outlets he doesnt like. The bounty story broke first in the New York Times, so hes able to deride it as fake news. His instinct is always to side with Vladimir Putin and dismiss u. S. Intelligence. Most famously, of course, he did so in helsinki, when he would not condemn or even acknowledge russias efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. There have been other moments since where he has also, when it would be a negative viewpoint on russia, he has dismissed the intelligence, even and yes, there is to be some debate as to how reliable all of this intelligence was, but it was clearly important enough to be brought up in the highest levels of government. And what were seeing here is, again, the president unwilling to confront Vladimir Putin on a number of occasions on some of including in this case not just on u. S. Intelligence, but on the lives of american soldiers. John heilemann, your take on this interview. Well, first of all, ill join the chorus of congratulating swan for doing a really nice job and not letting the president bob and weave and evade the question and staying on top of it, because few, very so few people are given a chance in front of donald trump will stay on one topic. And often, they get distracted by news of day. This is important. And i think that all the things that have been said here make a lot of sense to me and comport with the view, but i think theres something even i hear jonathan say, you know, well, to be fair, if the president were to say, i didnt take this intelligence seriously because a captured taliban fighter might be feeding us misinformation, there are dissenting views. I just want to be clear, thats a generous view of what the president did here. I mean, in the sense that youre making allowance for that possibility. No, no, no didnt hear the president say anything like that. No, no jonathan, no, im on your side here. Im saying, i appreciate that we were saying, theres a world in which donald trump could say those things, but he doesnt say those things here, as you know. All hes basically saying is, hey, its fake news. And i think its amazing the lack of intellectual curiosity. I think jonathan and i are saying the same thing here. The extraordinary lack of intellectual curiosity, the lack of depth, the simplicity, the superficiality. This is a president i mean, hes lecturing jonathan on a piece of history about the russians dealing with afghanistan that is Something Like any High School Student knows. And the president sounds as though hes just discovered this. Hey, you know what . You know, russia used to be the soviet union, and they were involved in afghanistan, and thats why theyre now russia. It made them bankrupt. Youre like, are you kidding . This is the level of conversation were having on this subject . I find the thing, mika, to your point, i find the totality of the interview to be as revealing about how the president thinks about the world, this part of the world, and Vladimir Putin in general, as any oncamera interview weve seen. So again, i think its a really valuable piece of video and im really glad its out there. 100 . Thank you, john. I really appreciate it. And just to be clear, john and i are not saying Different Things on this subject. I was hypothesizing about a magical, separate world in which a leader might have described the intelligence in that way. He very evidently disbelieved it on its face, made that very, very clear. Right. In the interview. Totally. Claire mccaskill, among the other wild things about this interview and disconcerting things about this interview, as mika pointed to briefly at the top, was the equivalence, the immediate quiv lanequivalence, jonathan confronted him with the fact that russia was arming the taliban against the United States, he immediately goes to, we did that, too. We did that, too, back in the 80s, instead of saying, yes, im troubled about that and i also confronted putin about that. Weve been saying it how many years now, claire . There is something about Vladimir Putin, there is something about russia, where the president will not confront this man. Yeah. I wish we could get americas military all in one room and watch this interview, because this is a president who gives lip service to caring about our military. He wants to lie all the time about how it was completed until he got to office. This is an explosive allegation that putin is putting a bounty on the heads of american soldiers. Its explosive. It would be explosive to any president. It did reach his desk in a briefing, and he has done nothing. Hes not said a word. And by the way, this allegation didnt come from the New York Times. This allegation didnt come from the media. This allegation came from people in the Intelligence Community, the vast majority of which are either active military or retired military. So, it is coming from his people, from the people he gives lip service to. But always, he takes the side of putin. There is something really rotten with this, and im hoping that everyone sees this. Jonathan, congratulations. All of us have been frustrated that we have not been able to pin him down. Now you have pointed out, hes talked to putin eight times and never mentioned it. I hope everybody watches your interview in total on monday on hbo. I appreciate it. Thank you. And the context yeah. In context with what we have seen from this president along the way, from his side meetings with Vladimir Putin, with no readouts, everything we have seen. But now lets go back to december 18th, 2015. We have a short clip. This was President Trump, then candidate trump, on morning joe. Were talking with him. Were talking about russia. Were talking about putin. Watch my face change. I mean, this was a turning point. Read joes Washington Post articles in the leadup after this. Everything changed in terms of the tone with donald trump. People asked what changed . This was it. Take a look. It was the same way he answered swans questions. Theres never a legitimate answer. Its always, well, we do it, too, but no real clarification on what that means. Take a look. But again, he kills journalists that dont agree with him. Well, i think our country does plenty of killing also, joe, so, you know. Eddie glaude, hes always got this moral equivalency thing going. Your take on the interview . Well, it was a stunning interview on a number of different levels. One is, to echo hilemans point its just clear, cultivated ignorance. I mean, he just wallowes in it. Its stunning, actually. But i think the other point is what Jonathan Swan just laid out. What was stunning to me is when jonathan asked him abou