get her view of how rape prosecutions have changed in her four decades as a lawyer. but first, that the president of the united states doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't know what he's supposed to be doing in the job of president is of concern every day. but with the coronavirus and the age of global travel now threatening virtually every country in the world, the documented fact and book after book from sources inside the trump white house that donald trump has no idea what to do in the face of such a crisis is more alarming than the typical day in the trump presidency. so far the only thing we know the president has done about the threat of the coronavirus is to tweet. today he tweeted the coronavirus is very much under control in the usa and not one person in the usa can believe that. even trump supporters know they cannot believe that. because donald trump is president. "the washington post" has reported, quote, trump grew concerned that any stronger action by his administration would hurt the economy and he has told advisers that he does not want the administration to do or say anything that would further spook the markets. he remains worried that any large-scale outbreak could hurt his re-election bid. the markets certainly didn't believe donald trump's tweet today that the coronavirus is very much under control in the usa. the stock market dropped dramatically today as the number of coronavirus cases outside of china surged and provoked fears of a prolonged global economic slowdown because of the spreading virus. we know that this president of the united states does not know how to defend the united states against something like the coronavirus. donald trump attacked president obama and the obama's administration's response to the ebola virus. it turned out to be exactly the right approach to the threat of the ebola virus. donald trump does know how to defend the united states against russia's attack on our election which is happening again after the successful attack on our election in 2016. but donald trump doesn't want to stop russia's attack on our election. he operates in the white house in perfect sync with vladimir putin's attack on our election. donald trump says everything vladimir putin wants donald trump to say about russia's attack on our election, including that it never happened in 2016 and that it's not happening now. donald trump is conducting a purge of his administration of people who, among other things, take russia's attack on our election seriously and want to do something about it, including informing congress about it. these are just some of the reasons why almost every democratic candidate for president polls strongly against donald trump in one on one polling. on saturday, only three came away with delegates, bernie sanders picked up 22 delegates. joe biden picked up 7. pete buttiegieg picked up 3. after nevada, we're now in a purely ego-driven section of the campaign in which delegates, if they have any impact at all, it will be to create a distortion in political reality. for example, billionaire tom steyer, who hasn't won a single delegate, is now polling at 15% in the primary in south carolina. that means he's in third place behind joe biden at 27%, sanders 23, tulsi gabbard at 3. tom steyer will pick up delegates in south carolina if he wins at least 15% of the vote, but he may not pick up a single delegate anywhere else on the electoral map. so tom steyer's massive ad spending in south carolina that might win him a few delegates will in the end represent nothing but a distortion in the political reality of the south carolina vote. if tom steyer dropped out of the race, would most of his support go to bernie sanders or to joe biden or would it be split between them or would some of it go to elizabeth warren, would some of it go to pete buttigieg? push them up over 15%? we don't know. it's distortions like that, temporary distortions like that that in the political marketplace, they are eager to see them follow andrew yang's example and drop out of the race. bernie sanders is now in the lead nationally at 32%, bloomberg 19%, biden 18%, warren, buttigieg at 11, tulsi gabbard at 2. the next candidate debate will be tomorrow night in south carolina. it will be the last debate for most of the democratic presidential candidates because it is not just the last debate before the south carolina primary on saturday. much, much more importantly it is the last debate before super tuesday voting next tuesday in the giant states of california and texas, along with 12 other states, including massachusetts, colorado, virginia. everything is going to be on the line for the candidates in tomorrow night's debate in every one of those states. and as of now, the only candidate who seems certain of surviving super tuesday is front-runner bernie sanders. for all of the rest there seems to be no way to predict where they will be after super tuesday. so tomorrow night's debate could be the final debate for most of the democratic candidates. leading off our discussion tonight, jennifer palmieri, former white house communications director for president obama and former communications director for hillary clinton's presidential campaign. and annan gierdadas, editor at large of "time" magazine, author of "winners take all: changing the world." he is an msnbc political analyst. on that the stumble came even after you tutored me once again -- >> we figured out the last name has the same number of syllables. >> you have the same number of syllables as pete buttiegieg. >> he does. >> i want to go to the recent piece of your question. if you could get one question in the debate, it would be this question. you wrote, if i could ask one debate question, it would be this. raise your hand if you would want there to be more billionaires at the end of your presidency than the start. raise your hand if you would want fewer billionaires. then, same question but applied to millionaires. >> you know, i think we are, as we describe in the piece in the middle of what i call the billionaire referendum. we are having an election about candidates. it's hard to think about an election that has been so focused in so many different ways on this question of the billionaire in american life, on extreme wealth in a democracy. that is partly because you have two billionaires running. then in bernie sanders and elizabeth warren, you have two candidates whose entire focus is bringing billionaires down a peg. you have billionaires as the most important financiers of all the candidates who are not those four i just described. all the platforms we're discussing this election on is owned by billionaires. and so this question -- and billionaires, by the way, the way they employ people, avoid taxes and lobby and rig systems have supplied the atmosphere of hostility, mistrust, anger that is very much the main character in this election. so when it comes to this question of do you want more billionaires or less, this is actually a very novel question in american life. i think whether you're on the left or right, bill clinton, barack obama, reagan said we want tax rates -- the first time in my lifetime we are having a real conversation, would you want there to be fewer of these people for justice to be done in america? essentially more of that money taken through wealth taxes, income taxes, capital gains taxes, profit trimming, minimum wage, et cetera. and i think what would happen, what might happen if you ask that question, bernie probably, i want fewer billionaires. i'm curious what bernie would say about millionaires. >> since he is one. >> right. but more because, you know, people who own three convenience stores can end up right at that -- it spans a lot of different people in american life. i think with elizabeth warren you might get a different answer, maybe the same. i think it would be important for a lot of people to fundamentally address this question which i try to raise in the piece, which is, are billionaires merely people who happen to have drifted up from you and me, up into the stratosphere or are they actually up there because they are standing on our collective backs, pinning us down through what they lobby for, through the taxes they fail to pay, through the ways in which they organize monopolies to essentially turn the fruits of the future into their personal prerogative? and i think americans are changing their hearts on this question, which is why we're seeing results that are causing a lot of people in the plutocracy in the media to freak out. it's actually worth backing up from the freakout and asking why is this happening? this is happening because a lot of people are feeling things in this country they haven't felt before. >> jennifer palmieri, is history going to show the two billionaires in the race, as a distortion in what could have been the reality of this lineup? if you look at mike bloomberg, he's polling nationally in a tie second place with joe biden. if you were to add up all the kind of biden-like candidates in the race, they add up to over 50% with two billionaires possibly in that mix. >> yeah, the only reason why bloomberg -- the only reason bloomberg is polling as well as he is because of the money he has spent, right? i think his campaign would acknowledge that as well. it's not, he has not proven himself to be -- to have a lot of support. no one has actually cast a vote for him. but he's managed to get on everybody's radar because of what he's been able to purchase. and, you know, i thought that might work, you know? i thought his strategy might work. and then we saw last week's debate. how well you perform still matters to voters and he's come down a number of points in the last week from the polls because of that. and, you know, we'll see how he does tomorrow night. the fact he cancelled his town hall tonight means they don't feel so great. i think it's still the caliber of the candidate and their ability to meet voters where they are and talk about the concerns in their lives still does matter. >> i want to get both your perspectives on this. jennifer, you've been inside the campaigns. you've seen how fund-raising works. my question, annan, is what is the difference between a billionaire spending his own money -- we, the candidates tomorrow night who aren't billionaires are going to call that buying an election. you're going to hear bernie sanders say something about buying an election. you're going to hear elizabeth warren say something about buying an election. how is that different from using other people's money to -- what do you call that when you use other people's money? is that buying an election? barack obama used a billion dollars of other people's money in 2008. did he buy it? >> let me disclose up front, i don't think there should be any billionaire money in any of our elections. >> campaign finance reform. i think we can all agree on that, yeah. >> so then the question becomes in the subliminary world where barack obama can spend time on the phone, buttigieg or others in the game, or bloomberg. michael bloomberg has made the argument that not having to court other billionaires is -- makes him less corrupt. makes him actually incorruptible. he said i am the only person -- all rich guys start, i am the only person who can't be corrupt in this race. he said that in phoenix. remarkable statement casting aspersions on everybody else, because i don't need to raise money from others. and what is so fraudulent about this statement is if you actually just think for a second, if you are having to raise money from, like -- let's say ten different rich people, ten different rich people do not agree on everything. they agree on nothing. they all have a lot of egos. a handful of issues about being rich. that's ten different people pulling you in ten different directions, which is sort of what madison was getting at in federalist, pulling people in different directions you're prevented from going one way monolithically that's dangerous to the people. one guy accountable to nobody whose whims in his bathrobe in the morning decide his ideas, his policies, who he surrounds -- his bathrobe whims become the governing framework of the united states potentially. that to me is way more dangerous than someone who in the fallen world at least has to deal with the shifting moods and taboos and sensibilities and interests of ten different rich guys. to go to what jennifer said, she's absolutely right. every single vote michael bloomberg hopes to get is because of spending money on ads. in other words, the enterprise of the bloomberg campaign, not some side activity of it, the enterprise of it as a whole, is corrupt. his running -- >> buying ads is corrupt? >> no. attempting to pursue the presidency of the united states entirely by spending money, without relating to people, connect to people -- >> it removes you from the rest of the process. >> and buying it with no other basis. he has no support. he had no support until he started spending this money. he knows it, his people know it. the entire enterprise of the bloomberg campaign is corrupt. and i've said this yesterday, people may disagree with me. it makes something like the ukraine deal, which is not something i'm a fan of, it makes it look small because what we're actually talking about is an individual now, but also the next cycle and the next, just thinking this is now a consumer product. the president of the united states becomes a thing people just think they can buy. >> let me get jennifer in. jennifer, as someone who worked inside real presidential campaigns, dealing with the reality of this, which is the courting of billionaire donors, the courting of small dollar donors which has become hugely important thanks to the internet, that has helped democratize in a sense campaign financing as bernie sanders has remarkably demonstrated, what is your reaction to all of these questions and the notion of, is a candidate who has to, you know, solicit money from a lot of different people including a lot of different rich people to build up a billion dollars to win the presidency, is that qualitatively different from a person who can afford it? >> i think if you have the 12th richest person in the world, right, that there is that much income -- that much gap in income equality in america, you come in, use your own money and spend your own money as he already has in an attempt to win over voters is not the best way to elect a president. and what -- and i think that when you're having to raise money, it's a time suck for a candidate, someone will have to do it. you're showing you're able to put a coalition together. you put a coalition together of small dollar donors, wealthy donors. it shows you can get a base of support for your candidacy. that proves that you're a strong candidate. what i think that bloomberg is -- i don't, i don't -- i think this is a bad way to elect a president and i would not describe the entire bloomberg effort as corrupt. i think bloomberg is well intended in what he is trying to do, it's just a bad way of doing it and i have enormous concerns with. but going to iowa and new hampshire and south carolina and nevada, that's where presidents really turn into good leaders. that's what barack obama would talk about all the time. the people that he met on the campaign trail, how much he missed that as president. that's why he got ten letters every night from people. so he had a way to stay in touch. bloomberg could hurt his soul as president if he were selected is not having that kind of connection with the people you're going to lead. that's what money -- too much money, you can buy your way out of that, that's really -- a dark way to get into presidency. >> thank you both for starting us off tonight. really appreciate it. and when we come back, harvey weinstein is guilty, guilty of rape. he was led from the courtroom today in a state of shock in handcuffs. what the manhattan district attorney says will be a maximum of 25 years in prison when the judge sentences weinstein in two weeks. that's next. at today's best western, stay two nights and get a free night for your next stay. one night, two nights, free night. book now at bestwestern.com. (burke) we've seen almost everything, so we know how to cover almost anything. even a "gold medal grizzly." (sports announcer) what an unlikely field in this final heat. (burke) not exactly a skinny dipper, but we covered it. at farmers, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. so call 1-800 farmers to get a quote. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ ♪ he's been around the world, ♪ he's seen it all, it's always what you think of, ♪ - [crowd] surprise! ♪ right there, all the time, - with over 40 fully integrated applications, you won't be able to contain your excitement either. from just a dollar a day per employee, run your entire business with zoho one. the operating system for business. it took two years and 3 1/2 months for harvey weinstein to be found guilty of rape in a courtroom today in new york city. that's two years and 3 1/2 months since "the new york times" revealed harvey weinstein's monstrous decades of behavior as a sexual predator, sexual assaulter, and rapist. and pulitzer prize reporting by megan tuohy and jodi canter in "the new york times" delivered us that story. ronan farrow followed "the new york times" report with his own pulitzer prize reporting in "the new yorker." the women who came forward to tell their stories in "the new york times" and "the new yorker" are the heroic vanguards of a new movement that has now changed the legal world's understanding of rape and how to prosecute rape charges. harvey weinstein was found guilty of 2 out of 3 possible verdicts against him. he was found guilty of the rape of jessica mann and guilty of a criminal sexual act in the first degree against miriam haley. jessica mann broke down on the witness stand during cross-examination by weinstein's lawyer, which caused judge james burke to end the trial proceedings early that day. jessica mann spent three days total on the witness stand describing a complex involvement with weinstein which she said was at times consensual, but did include at least two incidents of violent sexual assault. prosecutor joan aluzi told the jury weinstein tried to keep in contact with his victims in order to control them. she told the jurors when you have to trick somebody to be in your control, then you know that you don't have consent. miriam haley was in tears on the witness stand when she described the first time that harvey weinstein attacked her, saying he pushed me down, he held me down by my arms. no, stay like that. and i said, no, no. at the time i started realizing what was actually happening, and i thought, this is being raped. here is what manhattan district attorney cyrus vance had to say after the jurors' verdict. >> weinstein is a vicious serial sexual predator who used his power to threaten, rape, assault, trick, humiliate, and silence his victims. he has been found guilty of criminal sexual act in the first degree and will face on that count a state prison sentence of no less than five years and up to 25 years. >> joining us now, molly crane newman, who is the manhattan court's reporter for new york daily news. she has been in the courtroom every day covering the weinstein trial. also cynthia oxney, former federal prosecutor, nbc legal analyst. mollie, today in the courtroom, there is no suspense like a jury verdict. but on friday when the jury sent a note to the juror -- to the judge saying, can we be hung on the two heaviest counts if we are in agreement on the others, it seemed like they had at least reached agreement on the lesser charges, which is what we found today. >> right. so, the jury did give us a hint as to what they were feeling on friday. and they had asked if they were hung on the two counts of predatory sexual assault but unanimous on the other three counts -- pardon me, what would that mean? and so the question was phrased hypothetically, it gave us some indication of where -- >> what was weinstein's reaction when he heard that word guilty in the courtroom today? >> he looked straight ahead. he looked disconnected and stunned is how i would really describe his face when that came down. i don't think he was expecting it. >> and did you see him put in handcuffs in the courtroom? >> yes. so, from when the verdict -- when the jury foreman read the verdict until he was taken away in handcuffs was about 20 minutes, and then he was separated from his walker. they cuffed him from the front and walked him into the cells in the back of the courtroom. >> the video we see of him walking out of the courtroom is so different from the video we've seen of him walking into the courtroom every day hunched over a walker. he is -- he does have an officer on each side of him, but his leg movement, his walking out of the courtroom today looked like someone who really wasn't having any trouble walking. >> right. well, you know, seven weeks ago today harvey weinstein walked into manhattan criminal court for the first time on a walker. it was the first time anybody had seen him on a walker. his lawyers claim that he needs it after he had back surgery. you know, today donna said to the judge back surgery was not a success and that he's needed it to support himself to walk. that is what we've been told. and by his defense team. >> cynthia oxney, your reaction to this prosecution, which had a burden unlike any i'm aware of in previous sexual assault and rape cases. >> right. >> which was kind of ongoing interaction with the victims. and in the past, prosecutors, if they saw that, if they saw any kind of friendly email contact or anything like that after the incident, they would kind of give up on the case. >> yeah, i think it was -- i think if you look at it in a traditional way, it was the impossible case. it was not a case where you would put resources in because you would have no confidence that you would ever get a conviction and you would put your victim through a terrible ordeal for nothing. and you would waste resources of the office that were needed for other victims. so this is a complete change in the prosecution of sex crime cases. it's a huge win for victims everywhere. not only these victims, these 80 victims of his, but also victims who are out there and are afraid to come forward. and now they know they can come forward. so i can't tell you how impressed i am with the quality of the lawyering to be able to get a conviction in this case because these women had these ongoing contacts with weinstein. and let me say about weinstein and his walker, let's remember he has been in the entertainment business. this walker, cry me a river. he'll do just fine in jail. i don't want to hear about his walker and his medical problems, quite frankly. >> let me tell the control room, we don't have to show the walker any more, but i would by contrast like to show him walking out of the courtroom today. it's a stark contrast. >> cynthia, let me stay with you on a legal frontier that has been mapped out on this. i wonder if the prosecutors in the case read the "new york times" accounts, read ronan farrow's reporting in "the new yorker" and processed the complexity in this in a way they haven't before because that reporting was so detailed and brought out all of the various shadings and the different kinds of regret and the different kinds of feelings that the women had about these experiences. >> well, i'm sure that when they first spoke with these women they shook their heads and thought, we're never going to be able to get a conviction on this. i mean, that's what people -- what experienced prosecutors would think. fortunately there were enough heroic victims. there were enough women that came forward and the quality of the reporting was so good that they were pressed into action. and we're very lucky, again, not only in our presidential system, but in the legal system here that we've had these reporters that have done this work. i mean, just imagine, these people maintained contact with him. one of them when she changed her phone number, she gave him the new number. that, in and of itself, that little fact would be enough to lose a case over time. that's -- that would have been enough not to bring a case forward. and here they went forward with lots of evidence like that. and it not only shows how brave the prosecutors were and how brave the victims were. one of these victims had three days of cross-examination. it's wrenching to do an hour and a half of cross-examination in a rape case, and she had three days of it. and the quality of the defense was quite good, and so it was very painful. >> mollie, harvey weinstein did not testify in his own defense. we are not, as jurors, can take a negative inference from that. jurors are told not to, but we certainly can. it says to me there wasn't a single thing he could say that could have helped him. those prosecutors did have this unique burden. how did they deal with the challenges of some of the testimony of the witnesses they put on? because the old model for this is if the defense can raise just one doubt about anything that the witnesses said, you know, you can kind of knockout all of the testimony. these prosecutors must have realized there can be some elements of doubt about some of the things the witnesses are saying, but we somehow have to preserve the total impact of their testimony. how did they do that? >> right. well, you know, jessica mann, for example, she was on cross-examination for a total of nine hours over two days. and she was totally forthcoming about her relationship with harvey weinstein. you know, she told the jurors, i have nothing to hide. i own my behavior. and sort of described this on-again, off-again consensual relationship with him. and merriam blakely was the same. they tried to bring up old emails, friendly text messages they had sent before and after the fact. when the women took the stand, they didn't lie about their relationship with him and they didn't like about the complexities. i think in the end the jury was able to see the nuances. >> molly, before you go, i want to ask you as a person and as a woman sitting in the courtroom, you've covered a lot in that courthouse. what was it like for you to be in that courtroom every day with this testimony? >> well, you know, it was important to -- it was a challenging trial in more ways than one, but i just tried to do my job and report it as best i could. you know, this is a huge trial. there were reporters from all over the world covering it. we were there from 5:00 in the morning until 7:00 at night each day, and so i just tried to do my best at reporting it. >> but in terms of the personal weight that you felt, was this different from other trials you've had to cover? >> i've certainly never covered a trial like this, so, yeah, it was challenging in ways. but again, i just tried to be in reporter mode and cover it from that angle. >> molly crane-newman, thank you for being in reporter mode. we relied on your reporting. cynthia oxney, thank you for joining us tonight. when we come back from the break, cecile richards will join us to talk about this era of me too and the donald trump era and where we go from here. your pro. ahh no, come on. i saw you eating poop earlier. my focus is on the road, and that's saving me cash with drivewise. and then what happened? where's our family from? was he my age? so nana and pops eloped? ...and then what happened, daddy? well, before us, there were your great, great, great grandparents. turn questions you've always had into stories you can't wait to share; with ancestry. turn questions you've always had int♪ stories ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ and wondering if that was the last time i was going to do that thing. i thought i'm not letting anything take me away from my family that loves me and needs me without a fight. when i came to cancer treatment centers of america, it felt so different from any other hospital we'd ever been to. whether it be spiritual, physical, emotional, they take it all into consideration in healing you. infusion, imaging, everything is here. i don't have to go anywhere else. they create a treatment plan that's for you. they cared about my victories. they cared about me as a person beyond just being a cancer patient. they're my second family. get care like no other. call us at cancer treatment centers of america. it's an honor to tell you that [ applause ] thank you. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. i love you! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ this is the new landscape for survivors of sexual assault in america, i believe, and this is a new day. it's a new day because harvey weinstein has finally been held accountable for crimes he committed. the women who came forward courageously and at great risk made that happen. >> that was manhattan district attorney cyrus vance today after the jury found harvey weinstein guilty of rape. joining us now is cecile richards, co-founder of the women's political group super majority and the former president of planned parenthood. cecile, i want to pull back to a wider vision of where we are at this point in the 21st century. we have seen so much turmoil, especially if we were to just start the clock at the "new york times" article of harvey weinstein 2 1/2 years ago and include the trump campaign for president where we saw the "access hollywood" video come out, and that did not stop the trump presidential campaign, as so many people assumed it would. what do you sense is changing now, and does this verdict represent the kind of change from where we were when apparently enough voters saw the "access hollywood" video and decided that doesn't bother me, i still want that guy to be president? >> well, i think, first, i think today this conviction does belong to the courageous women as cy vance said, who not only risked their careers, risked humiliating days in the courtroom. this could not have happened four or five years ago. this is really a result in this case of more than 80 women coming forward. and in the words of tawana burke saying, me too, and standing up for each other. it was a spark that was lit and it is not going out. and i do think it's about something -- it's about the courage of these women, courage of jodi, of megan, of really pursuing the story. and it's showing women the power, what they can do when we actually stand up and for each other. i think it's obviously catapulting into this election where women are finally realizing that they have the political power to change what's happening in this country on a whole host of issues and not least of which is sexual assault and harassment, which is rampant in this country. and, again, of course not just in hollywood, but experienced by women in the work force all across america. >> women's health is now under assault by some republican policies. reproductive rights under assault by republican policies. and that's one of those areas where you had a right to think that women had achieved certain victories and certain benchmarks that could not be reversed, but we're seeing that attempt continues. >> right, no, absolutely. women are seeing on all of these issues a government right now is not only standing still in some cases, but actually rolling back rights that they have had. and i think that's why you're seeing historic numbers -- not obviously the women's march was sort of the beginning of it all now almost four years ago, but it has continued on in 2018, record numbers of women voting. we're seeing it in all the primaries, in every primary state and caucuses women outnumbering, being the majority of voters. i feel like women are beginning to realize the power of standing united and actually standing up on issues. this is an issue, sexual harassment and assault, that is experienced by women all across the country regardless of party, regardless of income level, and we're finally saying enough is enough. we want equality and we want these issues that have been swept under the rug come out into the daylight and do something about them. i think this is the president's biggest vulnerability with women. he clearly does not care. he continues to make derogatory comments about women. and i think this is going to breaking news tonight, president trump is kicks off day two of his tour across india. let's listen in. [ inaudible ] [ inaudible ] >> well, i want to thank you, mr. prime minister, the last two days have been amazing in every sense of the word. every stop, really special people, as you know. we have people in the united states, a number of them representing us today, very proud that their parent are from india originally. they're incredible people. many millions of people, living in the united states, and doing very well in the united states. and i look forward to you explaining a little bit later on to the media the progress we've made on trade, on fighter jets, on commercial airlines and various other things. and energy. we're working on some very substantial transactions. i think it's going very well. the last two days, especially when you look at what we did yesterday, thousands of people outside trying to get in, that was a great honor for me, and for you. i would imagine they were there more for you than for me. people love you. when i spoke of you, i speak with great fondness. the people cheered yesterday, 125,000 people, i guess, inside, and many people, every time i mentioned your names there were cheers. they love you in india, and that's a good thing. >> thank you. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, thank you, thank you. >> you're good. >> that is president donald trump and indian prime minister modi, meeting for bilateral talks. there will be more later. they're talking about trade, business, and military sales later. carol lee joins us with more. good morning to you. >> good morning. well, if yesterday was all about the spectacle, today, president trump and prime minister modi are getting down to business, and the issues that are holding them up from coming to agreement, such as trade. the u.s. is unhappy with certain protectionism steps that india has taken, and vice versversa. you heard the president mention energy. they are hoping to have some sort of positive steps to come out of their bilateral meeting, particularly on energy, and also the president announced yesterday that india is expected to purchase some $3 billion of u.s.-made military equipment. they're going to have this meeting, then the president will have joint statements afterwards, and then the president will have his own solo press conference later today, followed by a state banquet, then president trump heads home. >> you mentioned military sales, and the $3 billion deal. we understand their normal supplier is russia, and that relationship will continue. how does that work? >> that's one of the points of tension between the two countries right now. the trump administration was unhappy with india's decision to purchase a military defense system from russia, just like it was unhappy with turkey doing the same way. the president is trying to offer india more access to u.s. military equipment in the hopes that they will then move away from buying more russian military equipment. however, india is not anytimemi they've purchased. >> this is very much a whirlwind two-day trip. how is this visit being viewed so far in india, but also at home in the u.s.? >> well, in india, it's all president trump, all the time, on all the television news stations. you saw yesterday, the president referenced this in his remarks just now, 125,000 people at a stadium that turned out to hear him and prime minister modi speak. there were hats that said namaste trump. he's more popular in india than he is in other countries that he tends to visit. a recent poll showed 56% of the indian population views him positively. they particularly like the fact that he's doing this trip solely for india. and that's brought him a lot of goodwill here. >> and i was surprised to read he has a 56% approval rating in india. what is behind that, and also how much of this visit is aimed towards the indian voters here in america, as the upcoming election is a focus as well? >> well, part of what the polling shows that the indian population likes about president trump, they like his business, the way he asserts himself, his business background. they think -- they're not entirely happy with some of his positions, particularly on trade. but they have a general feeling that they like his leadership style. and as far as indian-americans go, it's not a huge voting bloc in the united states, but an important one, and a very well-heeled voting bloc. you heard president trump mention the indian-american population in his remarks right now. there was a focus on that yesterday. when he had prime minister modi in the u.s., they had this big rally with indian-americans for him in houston, and that's certainly a part of this trip. >> thank you very much. we'll hear more from india later as bilateral talks between president trump and prime minister modi continue today. >> you're watching msnbc. applebee's new irresist-a-bowls now starting at $7.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix. skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast! ♪ ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs for everyone you love. expedia. for everyone you love. stand up to moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. and take. it. on with rinvoq. rinvoq a once-daily pill can dramatically improve symptoms... rinvoq helps tame pain, stiffness, swelling. and for some... rinvoq can even significantly reduce ra fatigue. that's rinvoq relief. with ra, your overactive immune system attacks your joints. rinvoq regulates it to help stop the attack. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious infections and blood clots, sometimes fatal, have occurred as have certain cancers, including lymphoma, and tears in the stomach or intestines, and changes in lab results. your doctor should monitor your bloodwork. tell your doctor about any infections and if you are or may become pregnant while taking rinvoq. ready to take on ra? talk to your rheumatologist about rinvoq relief. rinvoq. make it your mission. but allstate helps you. with drivewise. feedback that helps you drive safer. and that can lower your cost now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? how you watch it does too. tv just keeps getting better. this is xfinity x1. featuring the emmy award-winning voice remote. streaming services without changing passwords and input. live sports - with real-time stats and scores. access to the most 4k content. and your movies and shows to go. the best tv experience is the best tv value. xfinity x1. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity. the future of awesome. after being impeached by the house and put on trial in the senate, donald trump is purging his administration in retribution. according to axios, donald trump and his allies have been assembling lists of disloyal government officials, disloyal to trump, that is, and replacing them with trump supporters. quote, since trump's senate acquittal, aides say the president has crossed a psychological line regarding what he calls the deep state. he feels his government from justice to state to defense to homeland security is filled with snakes. he wants them fired and replaced asap. in a new book out tomorrow, former assistant watergate prosecutor jill wine-banks reflects on her experience taking down a corrupt president. quote, more than four decades after watergate, i see history repeating itself with the presidency of donald trump. like nixon, trump is corrupt, amoral, vindictive, paranoid, ruthless, and narcissistic. now, as then, there's a sense that our country is spinning toward chaos, that our democratic institutions might not survive. today the peril is worse than in the 1970s because trump is more dangerous than nixon. joining our discussion now, jill wine-banks, former assistant watergate special prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst. she is the author of the new book "the watergate girl." pretty exciting, jill. on sale tomorrow. so that last line that i read, and this is a question that i've been going -- tossing around in my head throughout the trump presidency. who's worse, richard nixon or donald trump? >> they're both bad, but there is no question in my mind that donald trump is a much more existential threat to democracy than richard nixon was. and when you talk about vindictive and the purges, i would say that nixon was vindictive, and he retaliated against anyone he saw as not being loyal to him, but he didn't pull out people from the government. he didn't replace them with people who would do his bidding like attorney general barr and so many others. and that's what donald trump is doing, which hurts the institutions of government and really threatens democracy in a way that nixon didn't. and also during watergate, the system worked. he ended up resigning. he was forced out of office. and now we have the republicans in the senate saying not guilty. oh, yes, there's enough evidence to show that he committed all the acts that are charged. but then they said the words "not guilty," and that's terrible. >> well, now, was it the system that worked in watergate, or was it the people? was it the individuals? was it barry goldwater's sense of decency that made barry goldwater, arch conservative republican, go up to that white house and say, president nixon, you're going to have to resign? now, president nixon had been very helpful to him in his 1964 campaign. this wasn't easy on a personal level. but there was nothing institutionally that forced them to do that. they took that on as human beings and did that. >> i think it was a question of two things. one was morality. and we'd have to look at elliott richardson, who was the attorney general, who refused to fire the special prosecutor because he had promised congress -- >> republican elliott richardson. >> republican appointed by the president. but he said, i told congress i wouldn't fire him except for cause. there is no cause. so nixon fired him. and then the deputy attorney general ruckelshaus refused to do the same task assigned to him, and he was fired. and it was bork, who was the third person, the solicitor general, who did the firing and who never became a supreme court justice in large part because he did the dirty deed. but it's also because of the media. back then we had three networks, and they all had the same facts. now you have what are called alternative facts, which are lies basically. they can't be alternative facts. there are facts and there are non-facts. and people actually believe what donald trump says even though it's contradicted by evidence in plain sight. >> i really want to get your reaction to the weinstein verdict tonight because you've been practicing law since the 1970s. a case -- a prosecution like this was inconceivable in the 1970s, inconceivable until very recently when prosecutors always wanted the perfect -- >> yes. >> they wanted what they would call the perfect victim. >> they wanted the perfect victim. they blamed the victim. this is in the days when what the victim wore was part of the evidence. and if you were dressed provocatively, it was your fault that you got raped. and so people wouldn't -- prosecutors didn't bring cases as a result of that. and the laws had to be changed. for example, if you had a prior sexual relationship with any person, even in a loving, committed relationship, that was used as evidence against you. and those are things that the law has changed, but i think attitudes have finally caught up and that the me too movement, which i would have thought started with, for example, donald trump and his -- >> should have. >> it should have. i wouldn't have predicted that harvey weinstein was the cause of the whole movement, but it is him who started it. and he's got his just rewards now by having been convicted. and the jury obviously took it very seriously and did some jury nullification but reached a fair verdict. >> jill wine-banks. the new book is called "the watergate girl." thank you for joining us. really appreciate it. i want to give a special last word tonight to ashley judd, who was in the first "new york times" article about harvey weinstein. she went on the record publicly with her name. a big hollywood star doing that was very, very important to the reporting and to all subsequent reporting and encouraging other women to come forward. ashley judd tweeted today, for the women who testified in this case and walked through traumatic hell, you did a public service to girls and women everywhere. thank you. that is tonight's last word. ashley judd gets tonight's last word. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts now. tonight with the president in india, the dow has its biggest drop in two years, and it's because of the coronavirus, which the president says is under control here while saying he sees opportunity in the stock market. he's also saying, don't believe what the intelligence community is warning about russians attacking our elections unless it's to pin it on bernie sanders. plus the white house national security adviser goes into campaign attack mode in a startling interview. and bernie gets a bounce out of vegas. do his rivals make him the target in tomorrow night's debate, which will be the first with two billionaires on the stage as "the 11th hour" gets under way on this monday night. well, good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. day 1,131 of the trump administration. 253 days to go until our 2020 presidential election. and today while overseas, the

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Nevada , Texas , Washington , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Virginia , Russia , India , South Carolina , Massachusetts , Iowa , Colorado , Phoenix , Arizona , Houston , Turkey , New Yorker , Americans , America , American , Miriam Haley , Merriam Blakely , Harvey Weinstein , Liberty , Elizabeth Warren , Joe Biden , Barry Goldwater , Jessica Mann , Cyrus Vance , Tom Steyer , Jennifer Palmieri , Rachel Richards , Barack Obama , Miriam Haley Jessica Mann , Andrew Yang , Bloomberg Michael , Ashley Judd , Mike Bloomberg , Justin Hollywood , Richard Nixon , Cecile Richards , Carol Lee , Ronan Farrow , Bernie Sanders ,