he gave all of these documents back. he knew that the government should be in possession of these documents. the president is going to appoint a task force to review how transitions look at classified material to ensure there are better processes in place so that when, you know, staff is around the building, rushly packing up boxes to get out during a transition as quickly as possible, at the same time, and up until the moment that they're governing and doing matters of state. they're going to try to make recommendations that that can be fixed and appoint a senior government leader to do that. we'll have more on that. >> 2017, he had classified material. he boasted about it. >> in your advocacy here and in the president's counsel, writing back to mr. hur, you're saying that there were gratuitous comments, that there were false pieces of information. how is the american public supposed to process this when we also live in a world where

former president trump asserts that there was a politicized process that resulted in his prosecution related to classified documents and other things? so for the public, if democrats and this administration say trust the department of justice, trust the institutions, but you're also arguing here gratuitous political cheap shots and false assertions. how are they to process this? >> i talked about this a minute ago, and i think, you know, when you have the former attorney general, when you have the former acting fbi director, when you have the former general counsel of the fbi, you know, these are experienced people at the justice department who spent decades working at the justice department and they're saying it's gratuitous, this isn't appropriate. this is inconsistent with the doj policy and practice. that's them saying it. we agree. you heard the president speak forcefully about this last night. you heard the vice president speak forcefully about this today. we agree that it's gratuitous. i explained this in the opening.

we're in a pressurized political environment. when you are the first special counsel in history not to indict anybody, there's pressure to criticize and to make statements that maybe you otherwise wouldn't make. i think it leaves you wond -- wondering why critiques are in there. it's important to fundamentally distinguish between the prior case you mentioned. i want to be careful in terps of commenting on that. the special counsel report goes into great detail about the differences and distinctions there. i think it is important to understand the criticisms you're hearing of the gratuitous comments in the report, which are wrong, frankly, this is the experience of people in the justice department. >> on the issues related to memory that certainly seemed to prompt an angry response from the president and from his advocates is there anything being done to address that issue in an ongoing way? obviously counsel wrote asking for some of those things to be removed. it is potential that robert hur

could be called before congress to testify in public. are there any steps the administration would take addressing that specific issue. is it related to overall physician's report. what is it with memory, and is it a factor that deals with his capacity to serve? >> i have a lot of issues with the contents of that question, and karine has answered a lot about his medical records and things of that nature. but i'll say, i just read you this. later in the report, he says we expect the evidence of mr. biden's state of mind to being compelling, providing clear and forceful testimony. i can't explain why the report veers all over the place on this issue. i can say and as you've heard from the vice president, you heard from members of congress talking about their recent interactions with the president,

one, congressman goldman from new york talking about his interaction with the president the day before this interview when congressman goldman was on the ground in israel and the long and intensive and detailed conversation they had about what was going on on the ground. we reject that this is true. and it does raise questions about the gratuitousness and makes you wonder why that's in there. >> thank you. so you are discrediting some of the findings in this report. you are discrediting some of the observations of president biden. so why should the american public accept the conclusion that charges weren't warranted? >> i'm not sure i understand exactly what you're asking. >> i'm saying you're claiming that much of the report is inaccurate, so why are you so confident that the conclusion is correct? >> the conclusion has been obvious from the very beginning. it was a long, intensive, sort of meandering investigation that came to the conclusion that in february of last year, everybody knew that this wasn't intentional, that this was an

accident. that they were found and as soon as they were found, the president said give them back. get them back as soon as we can and fully cooperate with everything. he reached the inevitable conclusion because it's the truth. the conduct of the investigation throughout and the gratuitous comments in the report are troubling and inappropriate. i think that the finding was the obvious one because it's the truth. >> president biden believed his staff largely for the mishandling of documents and where they ended up. does the president believe he did everything right when it comes to handling classified material? >> look at the report, but the report talks about how the evidence is these were most likely things packed up by staff in movements and transitions and things of that nature. that's reflected by the report. it's not some accusation by the report. it's just true. you know, you work with white house staff all the time. we support the principle. that's our job. and principle relies on their staff to help them with things. and the president said this last

night. he talked about how looking back, if he was more engaged in that process of the packing and moving things, to make sure things were done in the right way. the most important thing to remember is once it was realized something wrong happened, he did everything right to fix it. >> what happened the stuff he talked about in his home, in filing cabinets that were locked or able to be locked in his house? what stuff was he talking about, classified materials? >> the report goes on at length about this. i encourage you to read that. >> he said the stuff in my house was all in filing cabinets that were either locked or able to be locked. didn't he put them in his home? >> i'm not following the question. i think what's clear, and i told this to justin a minute ago, you know, he has personal diaries that he had. of course he has personal die ris. -- diaries. the boxes were jumbled and found

inadvertently in places. >> thank you. how concerned is the president and the team here that the, quote, gratuitous comments are going to damage them, damage public perception of him? >> i think the public is smart, and i think that they can see what's going on. i think that they see a president who fully cooperated. i think that they see a president who did the right thing and made sure everything got back. and this was a long investigation that ended without a case to be made. i think they can see and understand, you know, when people are gratuitous and make comments they shouldn't make and beyond the remit of a prosecutor to do. i think they understand that, and i think they'll understand that the president did the right thing here. >> if the 8th and 9th were obviously like very busy days where the president was overstretched, taking calls in the middle of the night, all of this, why continue with the interview with hur. why not do it on another day?

why give him the opportunity to have the lines in the report about time lines? >> he should have thrown up roadblocks, is what you're saying. >> hey, the world is on fire, could duo it another day. >> i'll tell you what's interesting about this. it's oddly not in the report. at the beginning of the interview, special counsel told the president, i understand that, you know, you're dealing with a lot of things and i'm going to be asking you questions about stuff from a long time ago. i want you to try to recall to the best of your abilities, you know, things of that nature. that's often what prosecutors would tell witnesses. so, you know, he understood that, but the president was going to commit to being cooperative. he talked about this last night. he wanted to make sure he had everything he needed and didn't want to throw up road blocks. >> reporter: has the president read the entire report, and when was he given the report? did he review it when the

lawyers did the privilege review and do you have any context on when he found the findings of it? >> we received the report yesterday from the justice department, formally sending it over. obviously the presidents lawyers were doings privilege review that we disclosed was happening, and disclosed when we concluded it. i think, you know, they were, you know, they had briefed him on the material as the client, you know, as is typical in a legal case, and then we received the full report yesterday. the president has been busy. i'm not sure he's read 400 pages. i'm not sure how many folks in the room read all 400 pages. >> the president was animated last night, rejecting the idea that he did not remember when his son died. can you provide a little more context. was he directly asked in an interview by the special counsel for the dates? was it part of a broader conversation? i need additional context to understand what is in the report

might be helpful. >> the president was pretty clear last night, and i think that the american people have heard from him for years about the pain and suffering they went through when beau passed away and the gravity of that. and to suggest he couldn't remember when his son died is really out of bounds. you know, the conversations in the interview back and forth, you know, he's being asked about, you know, file folders from a basement and how did they get there, and what was that, things of that nature. i don't want to get into specific things while it's still in the classification process. but, you know, it is safe to say that of course the president knows when his son died. >> do you have any type of why the special counsel would write explicitly in the report that the president was unable to recall when his son died? >> you would have to ask the special counsel. >> reporter: you said you told the special counsel that the criticisms of president biden

were inaccurate, gratuitous and wrong. how did the special counsel respond? >> put out his report. i'm unaware of any changes that were made in response to our very strong forceful and rooted in evidence arguments that we provided. >> reporter: and you had just mentioned how these interviews happened shortly after the october 7th attacks. the president mentioned last night. mentioning that, does that mean that possible memory lapses happened because he was so distracted by what was happening overseas or do you dispute that he had any memory issues during those hours of interview. >> i dispute the characterizations about his memory in the report are accurate because they're not. and i think the president spoke very clearly about how his mind was on other things. he was dealing with a huge international crisis of great global consequence, and you know, he was trying his best to answer questions in this interview because he wanted to be fully cooperative. >> reporter: so there were no

memory lapses during -- >> i think there's something important people should remember the way interviews like this happen. god forbid one of you guys have to get interviewed by a prosecutor, and i hope you don't. witnesses are told, as i mentioned by special counsel, to do the best they can to recall or remember things. and they're not supposed to speculate. you know, they want facts. they want facts in evidence. and so, you know, i think probably in almost every prosecutorial interview you can imagine that people have said they don't recall things because that's what they're instructed to do. i think that's important context to keep in mind. >> reporter: in september the president was asked about trump's classified documents being found at mar-a-lago, he said, quote, how could that possibly happen, how could anyone be that irresponsible, but there were classified documents in the president's garage in a damaged box. would that be considered irresponsible? >> the president made clear he gave everything back as soon as he found out he had it.

i think it's fundamentally incorrect to analogize the situation and frankly the report says that too, and the idea that he did anything except be totally cooperative and to take great strides to ensure that the classified documents were returned speaks for itself. >> good. thank you. >> reporter: the vice president referred today to the report as being politically motivated. is that the position of the white house that this report was politically motivated? >> i saw the vice president's remarks and thought they were very powerful. i talked about this a little bit at the top of our conversation today. there's an environment that we are in that generates a ton of pressure because you have congressional republicans, other republicans attacking prosecutors that they don't like. and it creates a need, if you're going to determine that charges weren't filed, people are human and thinking through, you know, what do we need to do.

and it leads one to wonder why he included criticisms in there. >> with regard to the staff, president biden has some staff members who have worked for him for decades, you referenced their mistake last night. has he had a visit with the staff members. do the staff members responsible for taking the documents to his house, do they still work for the president? >> i think i talked about this also before. this is an issue that has plagued administrations at both parties for 50 years. accidentally things get shuchled -- shuffled and taken and removed. they put a frequently asked questions, what do you do if you find them accidentally. he gave them back as soon as he found out about it. we understand that mistakes happen sometimes. i'm not going to get into individual witnessing of the report. >> president obama or president

bush, or president bush senior. >> that's not true, officials from all administrations have had this accidentally happen. you're parsing two things. you asked me, and the report states this clearly, this is likely inadvertent packing by staff. you asked about the staff issue, and i'm responding about the staff issue. the question you're ask about the frequency and normalcy, unfortunately, of mistakes like these being made. they happen, and what matters is how you respond to it. when you find out a mistake was made, you give everything back. >> reporter: what does it say about merrick garland's judgment that he appointed someone who put out a report that was so egregious and inappropriate, and flouted department regulations and norms? >> i think the president answered this question last

night. he talked about his views on the appointment of a special prosecutor, and i don't have anything beyond what he said. >> reporter: two things i was hoping you could clarify. the report says in 2017 the president told his ghost writer that he just found all the classified stuff downstairs. why did he not report that at the time? >> and this is included in the report as well if you read through it. the president was talking about a handwritten letter that he had sent to president obama, that he faxed to him about the afghanistan policy in 2009. and he says, you know, and this is in the report. he said last night, i should have said sensitive, more careful language about that because he was talking about something that was a letter he sent to the president. >> in his mind, it was sensitive, but what he said was classified? >> this is in the report. they talk about how the president took great care when talking with his book writer to note things like, hey, you need to be careful with some of this

stuff, i'm not entirely sure about it. so that's important to realize, the report talks about what care he took with the information as they explore the theories and go through the evidence that refutes most of the theories, actually all of those theories when you think about the judgment that there will be no case in this matter, so, you know, that's addressed in the report. >> reporter: and the second thing, the president also said last night, all the stuff that was in my room was in filing cabinets that were either locked or able to be locked. but the report says that some of the classified documents were in cabinet drawers, while others, about afghanistan, for example, were in unsealed and badly damaged box sitting in his garage. did the president misspeak last night? >> i think the president was responding to a number of inaccurate allegations in this report. we've talked a lot about justin asked about the diaries. i mean, this is personal diaries. of course he has them in his house.

i don't have anything to add on what he said last night. >> reporter: i want to follow up on the vice president's comments. she said politically motivated. is it this administration's stance that this report was issued in part or there was a motive, a goal with this report to inflict political harm on the president? >> i think that you have to look at, i mean, we talked about this at the beginning of our conversation today. you have a situation where former doj officials are talking act the political repercussions of these actions and it's incumbent upon the prosecutor to take great care to follow departmental policy, to not criticize unindicted conduct and behavior, or characteristics, which we've seen in this case. >> reporter: i understand former gop officials, but this white house right now, is it the stance by this white house that this report was issued in part with a motive and a goal to inflict political harm on the president? >> i heard the question the

first time. i have nothing to object to what the vice president said. she was powerful and forceful. >> reporter: this administration, as you said, you said that republicans have often attacked prosecutors and you said that's created an environment where if i've interpreted this right, there is an incentive by the special counsel to include some of this language. but often i've heard from democrats and this white house say that those attacks against independent systems can also sow distrust with the public and those independent institutions. by saying this is a politically motivated, does this not also sow distrust with the public? >> i reject that question. you see this and it's in the report, the letter that the president's lawyer and the white house counsel's office sent to the special counsel to talk about the department of justice norms and policies that they see as being violated by comments and remarking made in the report. i think that's a false equivalence kind of question.

what we have argued and continue to say and believe is that you're not supposed to make these sorts of things, according to justice department policy. the president, when he ran, and you guys all know this because you heard this, talked about how important it was to restore the rule of law, and he understands that, and he talked about this last night to mj's point, about the appointment of the special counsel and sort of how he felt about that. you know, this is a president who is committed to restoring those norms, and i think when we object to some of the gratuitousness and the comments you're asking about, you know, and you hear me talk about the former attorney general. >> did you think it was politically motivated? >> reporter: the portion of the video in the transcript where he was asked about his time as vice president and about beau biden's death, why not release those parts of the video? those aren't classified. >> it's a transcript we're talking about. and i already addressed this with justin.

>> reporter: so what you're saying is this wasn't a video, there's not tapes that you can release of that is this. >> i was just responding to the question about the transcript. >> reporter: and as far as former attorney general holder is concerned, you referenced him and the normal doj review process. he brought that up in his tweet as well, what part of the normal doj review process is the white house saying was violated or bypassed in some ways. >> it's a little in the weeds, pardon me. the special counsel regulations that exist at the justice department govern the process that is supposed to happen here, and the justice department has its own manual procedures, and as you've heard from experts, you're not supposed to sort of criticize unindicted conduct when making determinations. >> reporter: you said the president was responding to inaccurate information when he claimed last night that all the stuff in my home was behind locked filing cabinets.

is he entirely clear now at this point where all the documents were discovered, and does he now know his statement about locked filing cabinets is false? >> the report lays out in 400 pages of detail all of the evidence and all of the review that they conducted in looking into this matter. the president made sure all of the classified documents that were found were returned promptly to the government, which is what you're supposed to do, which is why this is the inevitable conclusion there is no case here. >> reporter: that's not what i asked, does he know all of his documents behind locked cabinets was inaccurate. >> i understand what you're trying to ask, phil, and i think i've answered the question. >> reporter: i have a follow up question, after that lack of response was there was an eye popping moment in the report, specifically about the president's ghost writer, and that was that after he learned that the special counsel had

began an investigation he deleted some of his recordings. now, those recordings were able to be recovered. what i'm curious about is can you say definitively whether or not the president or anyone else at the white house was in contact with his ghost writer? >> this is in the report. read the report. in the report it says that they sought this. they looked into this and that they didn't. that's in the report. >> reporter: we have to wrap this up. two questions, just for clarity. you're from the white house counsel's office. but you're not a lawyer, correct? >> that's correct. i'm a spokesperson. >> reporter: any chance we'll get the white house counsel to come out here and answer questions directly? >> should i be offended by that. i don't know. i mean, come on. >> reporter: you did say something that was factually incorrect. there has been a previous special counsel. -- >> finish your question, please. >> i was asked to come today by your colleagues in the press corps, and we happily obliged.

>> reporter: former president trump was charged with a slew of criminal charges related to classified documents in his possession. including counsel's willful retention of national defense information. in this report, it's made clear by the special counsel that president biden willfully retained and disclosed classified material. he kept it in unsecured locations after his vice presidency, which presented according to the special counsel, serious risks to national security. so my question to you is, can you explain to every voter out there, every american, why it is that president biden essentially is let off the hook, and former president trump is now facing a slew of criminal charges which seem to most people very similar. >> great wind up, john, i mean, really good wind up. i talked about this already.

page 1, willful retention, page 215, there is a shortage of evidence on these points. the report goes through in great detail, the obvious conclusion that there was no case here. the report itself answers the question you're asking about the distinction between two cases as you have heard us say for a long time. i would encourage you, perhaps all of you, read the report. >> reporter: that's the reason why i asked that question. you hear willful retention of national defense information related to trump. willful retention of classified material related to president biden, yet one individual is facing a criminal trial being brought by the department of justice in fort pierce, florida, and the other is not facing any charges. >> i have talked to many of you in the room over the last 24 hours about this, the allegation

that there was willful retention of documents is refuted by the evidence in the report and the conclusion was made directly that the evidence does not support that claim. he explored the theory. it's in there on page 2. everybody focus. i'm exploring the theory of willful retention. the evidence as a whole was insufficient because that's not what the facts show. thanks. really appreciate it, guys. >> reporter: previous special counsel that did not result in indictments, by the way. >> thank you, i would say refer to the white house special counsel, legal counsel, they're here. they came. >> two questions following up the president called military operations in gaza over the top after the white house has consistently defended israel's conduct. what's changed and what exactly

did the president mean by over the top? >> first of all, you know, i would say nothing has changed. his position hasn't changed. i don't think his messaging has changed. we don't think his messaging has changed. he doesn't believe his messaging has changed. this isn't the first time he's done so. what you heard from him yesterday. look, the president made it clear in his comment that he was talking about israel's conduct in gaza, and he's been clear that the united states wants to see hamas, a terrorist organization defeated. he's been very clear on that. that is a shared goal that we have obviously with israel. at the same time, while we have said that, we have been also very clear, the president has been very clear they must do so by ensuring that their operations are targeted and conducted in a way that we are protecting innocence civilians. and that is something that we have been incredibly consistent about here in the administration. we want to make sure that we are

also protecting innocent civilians, so that is what the president was speaking to yesterday. he was asked obviously a direct question and he answered that. >> reporter: secondly, the president last night bristled against the fact that many americans have concerns about his age. i think one of my colleagues said that's your judgment. the media's judgment. there's no shortage of polls that suggest americans have concerns about his age and stamina. is the president not in touch with what americans feel about this issue? >> look, obviously when it comes to the report, more broadly, you just heard from my colleague, that part of the report we don't think lives in reality. and that's what he was speaking to.

where comments were made about his memory that we don't believe live in reality. i'm going to answer your question. give me a beat. i'm going to answer your question. when you have a president that has been one of the most productive, if not the most productive and effective presidents in modern time that you would assume is a president that is indeed in touch with where the american people are. right. that would assume that the president understands what's going on around the kitchen table when americans are sitting around the kitchen table trying to figure out how are they going to deal with the economy, health care, so in our opinion, in my opinion, he is very much in touch with what americans are feeling out there as it relates to lowering costs, as it relates to big pharma. this is a president that understands what the american people are feeling. as it relates to his age, as it relates to what has been said by in this report, it's something we don't believe lives in reality in the sense that this is a president, i have known this president since 2009.

he has been not just my boss but a mentor to me. and no one in this building would say that what we saw in this report about his memory, everybody sees somebody who works very very hard, has spent hours with him understanding exactly where the american people are, what they're feeling and also how to deliver on those critical and important issues to them. >> reporter: your argument on the report and the assertion that it's gratuitous, i get that. but he seemed to be playing with a different set of facts. the facts are that this is an issue that americans are concerned about, and he's saying that it's just the media's judgment. >> right. but he's also joked around with all of you and talked about and said some things about about his age in a way that he understands where people are. he has also mentioned his old pal jimmy madison.

he gets how he's viewed. he gets what people see and what's written about him and what the american people see. there are other things to note. mccarthy when he was speaker said that he has found the president mentally sharp in meetings. there are stories like that, they're saying it quietly, privately, house republicans and other republicans in congress. but there's reports from all of you who have said that they have interviewed these folks and said the president is sharp, when they have a conversation with the president, he understands the issue. we saw it at the last state of the union. you know, he was able to negotiate while giving a very important speech, 90 minutes, to the world. you know, millions of americans watch, as he was able to negotiate with house republicans in the room. so people see that also for themselves. they also see that for themselves as well. >> so it's the president's feel that this is the results of americans being concerned about his age is based on a media

narrative and not based in reality. >> what i'm saying is he understands what people may think. he's actually joked about it. saying jimmy madison and many other things. he says i know people think i'm 40 years old. he's made jokes about it. he gets it. what i'm saying in front of you today is that he has results. there are results. the data shows this is a person that gets where the american people are and have delivered in that way, whether it's the economy, health care, on the global stage. what other leaders have said about him. he has been able to bring leaders together to deal with an issue, not an issue on war, be very clear in ukraine where the brave people of ukraine are fighting against mr. putin's aggression. so world leaders see it. leaders on the other side of pennsylvania, a republican or democrat see it. and that matters as well.

that's what we're trying to say as well. we have seen and heard from others that this is a president that has delivered, and this is a president that's going to continue to do so for the american people. >> reporter: you've down played concerns about the president's memory in situations where he has mixed up certain things. you said it happens and it's common. yesterday we saw the president again have a mixup with the president of egypt and mexico. how do you explain that? is it not valid that voters would have these concerns? >> look, what i will say is this. this is a president that has had a relationship with world leaders for more than 40 years. he has. and at times, and i even said this yesterday, has he, you know, misspoken? as many of us do. i've laid out some examples of even speaker johnson just on tv, on "meet the press" on sunday

who said he supports iran when he meant to say he supports israel, it happens. it truly happens. in that same answer he gave, he gave an incredibly detailed answer on the overlapping dynamic in the middle east as he was responding to the question he received from one of your colleagues. and i want to quote one more person as i've been quoting folks today. yar rosenberg at the atlantic said biden has gaffe names his entire career, his entire career. it is not uncommon that he has done that, like many of us do. and he said he was clearly talking about egypt and laid out his policy and the broader issues in detail. twitter just isn't interested in that. look, this is a president who has the experience. you've heard me say this. he's been senator for 36 years. vice president for 8, and now president.

he has these long relationships with leaders. i think what's important here to remember is that when it comes to the essence of the issue, the issue at hand, he understands that and has dealt with that probably, you know, better than, you know, any modern day president because of the record we have seen, because of what has presented in front of him as we look at what's going on in the world, what's going on in ukraine and the middle east. >> reporter: how did the president react when he first saw the report? >> i'm not going to get into private discussions or conversations with the president. >> reporter: i think justin had asked this before, but ian was making an argument that these were notes from his personal diary. that could be classified information, even if it's stuff he had written to himself. is the white house disputing that there was classified information? >> i'm not going to get into -- ian spent a good couple of minutes going back and forth to

answer that question. i don't have anything else beyond what ian shared here. i think the bigger picture here is that the case is closed and, i think that's what the american people also should know as well. i'm not going to get into details from here. >> reporter: with concerns about the president's age, are there any plans within the white house to have him engage more with the press, he decided not to do the interview before the super bowl. has there been any considerations revisiting that or other sorts of engagements. many people in the white house do not see the image of him. there are conversations about trying to change that perception among the american people? >> i mean, look, you saw your colleagues, i think were you in the room, tyler, yesterday. your colleagues and yourself were able to see the president and ask questions yesterday. he did that, if not the day

before yesterday, he did that a couple of times this week, engaging with the press. it's something he does often. you know, and we're going to try and obviously pick moments. he's going to on his own have moments where he's going to want to walk over and talk to all of you as he has done many times before. to your question, we're going to find many ways to engage with the president. something that we think is very important. it's important to take your questions. it's important to hear from all of you, and hear directly to, you know, what's on the mind of the american people as well as what we believe is on the mind of the american people, and take questions. >> reporter: i'm wondering if there's been more conversation in the white house in the last 24 hours. you can't say anything but this is a full court press by the white house against the part of the hur report, not the part that says he didn't do anything wrong. but that president biden is a forgetful elderly man.

i want to bring in nbc news white house correspondent monica alba. i guess you could call it a one-two-three munch. president biden last night, kamala harris an hour or two ago. you have not just the white house press secretary but a spokesperson for the white house counsel's office who i think ian sams gave the most detailed rebuttal to the accusations in the report. no confusion about what the white house strategy is about this, is there? >> exactly. and this has been a conversation yesterday that went into today about how best to respond and what strategy to employ, and now they are realizing that they needed to really go out there on offense to continue to defend the president, and ultimately i'm told by people who were a part of this decision making that they didn't want the narrative to get away from them. the excerpts from the hur report that painted president biden, the oldest president ever to

serve as a well meaning elderly man with a poor memory. we're going to of course catch fire and be something that the white house needed to figure out how to address quickly. and so that is why you saw this rare prime time news conference from the president last night, who did come out forcefully and quite fiery in his remarks and pushback against that defending his own memory, and his own recall, and so this is now something we have heard from the president, the vice president, and now some of these top aides specifically saying and labeling the nearly 400 page hur report as gratuitous, as unprofessional. as including portions of it that they really describe as unnecessary and unfair, and that they are arguing are essentially politically motivated from a republican appointee who was worried, perhaps, about pushback from conservatives if he didn't charge the president with a crime, and since he didn't do

that, and he didn't indict them, and he did, perhaps, indict him politically with some of these arguments and scathing allegations that are in this report. so the white house decided they needed to come out, and respond to some of this. now, we are hearing in more detail specifically about what the report gets into it when it comes to, for instance, these notebooks that are at the heart of this entire issue. these are personal diaries that the president kept when he was vice president in his possession because he believed he had a right to. and a question of how this happens from an administration to a transition period is going to lead and the news made today in the briefing to a news task force that's going to assess how that happens and how to better improve it so that it doesn't happen again in the future. but this was a really full-throated defense of president biden's actions when it comes to the classified documents but also when it comes to questions that many voters

and our own public polling speaks to have about his fitness to serve at 81 years old. >> monica alba, thank you. we just mentioned vice president harris, let me play exactly what she said just about 90 minutes ago. >> the way that the president's demeanor in that report was characterized could not be more wrong on the facts and clearly politically motivated. >> joining us now, a member o. biden campaign advisory board, democratic california congressman, robert garcia. good to see you again, congressman. do you believe at least that part of the hur report and i'm going to read those eight words that present the president as a sympathetic, well meaning elderly man with a poor memory. do you believe that that is politically motivated as we just heard from the vice president? >> absolutely. of course it is. it's really unfortunate that --

>> what's his ax to grind? why. what's the motivation, congressman? >> here's the bottom line. the bony line is important. this was a 15-month investigation. the president sat many hours over two days, answered every question. gave over every piece of information that they asked for, and what was the bottom line conclusion? there was nothing to charge the president with. there was no evidence, no charges that have been filed. the president did absolutely nothing wrong that he could be charged with, and he completely cooperated. let's contrast that with donald trump who would not cooperate with anyone. who hid documents, who ran away from the department of justice, who would not cooperate with any sort of process. and here we are, he's being charged with serious crimes on his mishandling of classified information, the same cannot be said for president biden. president biden did the absolute right thing here.

he's been cleared. no charges filed, and it's time to get back to work for the american people. >> and the president did move quickly last night. we talked about the fact that it is rare for him to hold an evening news conference, but particularly one that comes together in a very short period of time. they were able to get the press together. i want to play just a little bit of what president biden said last night. >> i'm well meaning and i'm an elderly man. i know what the hell i'm doing. i'm president. i don't need his recommendation. >> however, and i just want to give this asterisk, which monica just mentioned, the polls show that the american people believe that he is perhaps too old, that he is, they are concerned about his physical health. in our most recently nbc news poll, that was 3/4 of americans were concerned about his mental and physical health, including half of democrats. is part of the problem here, it

affirms for the majority of americans what they already believe, and what do you do with that as a member of the president's campaign? >> first, i want to be absolutely clear. i'm around the president often. the president is focused. he's detail oriented. he's always thinking about the big picture. he's funny. he understands, look, he makes jokes sometimes about his age, but what you have is someone with immense wisdom, probably the most experienced person ever to serve as president of the united states with his incredible experience. we should be so fortunate to have someone like joe biden and his wisdom in the white house. now look, folks in the press and certainly on the far right maga right want to attack him in any way possible. there's no question that the special counsel, a republican appointee who could not find one shred of evidence to charge him wants to score political points.

that's fine, they want to reelect donald trump, they want to do whatever they can to stop president biden from delivering for the american people. but we also know his agenda. lowering the price of insulin, passing infrastructure, doing great work around gun violence, ensuring that we're taking on climate change. the success is there. >> i'm glad you pointed that out because one of the questions i hear often for democrats is their frustration, they feel the message you just gave about what he has accomplished isn't resonating. you also pointed out on x that former president trump has confused leaders recently. nikki haley made a whole ad about him confusing her and nancy pelosi. polls show voters have a lot more concerns about biden's slipups. you have been around the block

for a while in politics, why do you think that is? why do you think it resonates more where president biden is concerned than it is for donald trump? >> because the far right maga machine is obsessed with taking out president biden and reelecting donald trump. was it just last week that mike johnson, our youthful speaker confused iran and israel. someone asked me if i remember the year i graduated from grad school, i had to think about it. that is lot to do about nothing. the president is incredibly sharp. i'm so grateful he's in charge of our country. we need to focus on ensuring he gets reelected. let's be clear what the opponent is, a 91-count indicted criminal who decides to not work with the department of justice and broke numerous laws. and so the focus is here because this is where the maga right

wants it to be. you know, they're out there spreading lies, politically motivated hit jobs. that's why it's up to us, folks like me and others who are going to be across the country, who know the president, telling the truth and defending the record. >> member of the biden campaign advisory committee and congressman robert garcia. thank you so much for coming on the program. coming up, the supreme fight before super tuesday. will the nation's highest court make a decision on a trump ballot ban before voters in colorado and many other states head to the polls. colorado's secretary of state will join me live with what's at stage after proceedings that seem to favor the former president. ent. is crushed by a baby grand piano. you're replacing me? customize and save with liberty bibberty. he doesn't even have a mustache. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day

blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. feeling claritin clear is like... ♪♪ is she? playing with the confidence of a pro and getting all up in that grass as if she doesn't have allergies? yeah. xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.' xfinity is giving away ten grand to a new lucky winner have allergies? for every first and ten during the big game. enter daily through february 9th for a chance to win 10gs. with the ultimate speed, power, and reliability the xfinity 10g network is made for streaming live sports. because it's only live once.

join xfinity rewards on the xfinity app or go to xfinity1stand10gs.com for your chance to win. right now it's a waiting game in the colorado supreme court case. the court could give an answer on removing president trump from the state ballot as soon as sunday.

just one day, by the way, before mail-in ballots are sent out. experts say it's more likely we'll see a decision by super tuesday, march 5th. joining me colorado secretary of state, and chair of the democratic association of secretaries of state, jena griswold, thank you so much for being with us. i mean, it does seem overwhelmingly, people expect the court to allow trump to remain on the colorado ballot. even liberal justices seem skeptical of the voters' arguments. look, nobody is going to, you know, get rich. presupposing the court, but it does seem to be moving in one direction. do you think the case wasn't well argued. was it not a good case to begin with. how do you see what happened yesterday? >> thanks for having me on your show, as always. and i think to take a step back from the case, this supreme court has not been friendly to voting rights, democracy or frankly the american people with what has happened with abortion

in this country. and in terms of the case, it was so striking being there yesterday with congress right across the street because on january 6th, congress members literally ran scared for their lives as our constitution came under assault. and to be at the supreme court where donald trump continued to lie about his role in the insurrection and continued to argue that even if he was guilty of insurrection, he is above the law and constitution, it was just such a big moment, and i hope the justices at the very least can see through his lies, and recognize state power to keep oath breaking insurrectionists like donald trump off the ballot. >> you said a ruling that keeps trump on the ballot would be a danger to america's future. specifically how, and understanding that in your group, it's democratic secretaries of state, but have

you spoken to them, and what's the conversation like? >> well, i think it's a danger because section 3 of the 14th amendment is in our constitution because of this exact situation. it is there to stop insurrectionists from regaining power in office, whether it's elected or appointed because the drafters understood that an insurrectionist who is operating from within can destroy our democracy from within. on top of that, trump takes no accountability for any of his actions. in the immunity case, his attorneys have the audacity to say he could not face consequence for assassinating political opponents. he thinks he's above the constitution, that he can try to steal the election from the american people, incite a violent mob, have people march on to the capitol, some with the intention of hanging his own vice president, and face no

consequence. a president like that is a danger and i do hope that the supreme court steps in. >> the lead plaintiff in the case, 91-year-old norma anderson was there. she talked about the arguments yesterday. i want to play just a little bit of what she said. >> even if ultimately the court goes against you, will this have been worth it? . >> yes, absolutely. >> why? >> i'm concerned about our democracy. if we don't do something about saving it, i see it slipping. i've lived long enough at 91 to go through many many presidents, none of them challenged the election as this one did, which tells me that he will challenge other constitutional things and other things in the democracy. >> she says win or lose, what she did was worth it. i'm assuming you agree with her.

but if so, what do you think was accomplished, again, even if donald trump is left on the ballot? >> i think norma anderson is right. it's up to all of us to protect american democracy. and sometimes in those fights against voter suppression, we win, sometimes we lose. sometimes when we push against racial gerrymandering, we have successes. the fight for democracy is ongoing. so norma anderson very much got that right. and in terms of this case, i think it's important for the supreme court to directly tell the american people if an insurrectionist can take the highest office of the land as presidency, they owe the american people that clarity. but norma anderson's, i guess, tone, regardless of what happens in this court case, the american people can save our democracy at the ballot box this year. >> colorado secretary of state,

jena griswold, good to have you back, thank you so much for coming on the program. and up next, welcome to the death star. a look inside the state of the art stadium hosting this year's super bowl, and the controversy over who's paying for it. we're live in las vegas. but first. designers behind the olympic medals for this year's paris games want to make sure athletes take a piece of france with them. every gold, silver and bronze medal will be embedded with iron from the city's most iconic landmark, the eiffel tower. the pieces were acquired during renovations and stored for safe keeping. one of the designers says having a piece of the eiffel tower means having a piece of history. and we'll be right back. ight ba. he thinks his flaky, red patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. it can help you get clearer skin. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting.

some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts, or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla. not flossing well? then add the whoa! of listerine to your routine. new science shows listerine is 5x more effective than floss at reducing plaque above the gumline. for a cleaner, healthier mouth. ahhhhh. listerine. feel the whoa! this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging.

most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california. steve garvey, the leading republican, is too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. there's another epic battle to watch beyond the showdown between the chiefs and 49ers.

it is the fight over taxpayers footing the bill for sports stadium. including the death star. nbc's david noriega is live in las vegas. $750 million in taxpayer dollars into building the site of sunday's big game, and you got an inside look. tell us about it, david. >> reporter: that's right, chris, this is one of the most expensive stadiums ever built, and when i got a tour of it this week, you can see why. it has a lot of bells and whistles. it's super high-tech, and 40% of the cost was paid by nevada taxpayers. the people who lobbied to get the stadium built say the fact that the super bowl is here is a sign of the success. i interviewed a consultant who has a very important role in getting the stadium and the raiders here in vegas. here's what he had to say. >> was it worth it for the people of las vegas, the people of nevada? >> i don't think there's any doubt about it. over 50% of the people that are in there come from out of town. and when they come from out of

town, each one of them spends about $1,100 per person, per trip, while they're here. that creates jobs and wages and salaries and tax revenues. when we have something like the super bowl here, those visitors are going to spend somewhere between three and four times that amount in our community. >> reporter: chris, nevada is about to do this all over again. they just approved $380 million for a new baseball stadium to lure the oakland a's to the city, and not everybody is happy about that. the state teachers union actually sued to block that public funding for the new ballpark. i spoke to a teacher and union official who said that, you know, if the state can find hundreds of millions of dollars for stadium, they should be able to find hundreds of millions for schools. i want to play an interview with teacher. >> when the teachers on the front line are sacrificing to try to hold these schools together with basically tape and

a stapler so that we can teach, it's infuriating. >> reporter: the teachers union is trying to put this question of public funding for the ballpark to a referendum, a ballot measure. that will be an interesting litmus test for how the general public feels about the question. >> david, good to see you. best place to be this weekend. thanks so much. that is going to do it for us this hour. make sure to join us for "chris jansing reports" every weekday, 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc. our coverage continues with "katy tur reports" next. good to be with you, i'm katy tur. depressed yet? if you're not, you're in small minority because when you poll americans, the vast majority say the options in front of them are bleak. yesterday only made it look worse. special counsel robert hur