books as windows rather than mirrors, and quote. i think that's really powerful. decades after publishing this book in 1991, your writing still to some people it's the first representation that they will find of themselves, mirror, not window. not window i have to still, that yep, window, i'm here, are not a window, and that is so heartening. and you, know i wish -- but you are doing the job of keeping those books up there. and so there will be those books available, and not pull off the shelves because people are afraid of anything that is going to be disturbing for other than what they want in a bubble. -- if you go back to the dictatorship. >> you want democracy? you want freedom? you want plurality? and pluralism in this is what you get you e-books.

you read books. you read books there was a great va, author of the book how the garcia girls left their accent. joining me tomorrow night six pm eastern for our special year end meeting of the velshi banned book club and we are going to feature some of my favorite conversations with authors and scholars from 2023. don't miss it. but i will speak with a man who was one of the first introduced the idea that donald trump could be disqualified as a 2024 presidential candidate because of section three of the 14th amendment. the federal judge joins me just a few moments if -- another hour of velshi begins right now. and good morning, it is saturday, december 23rd. i'm ali velshi. the start of a crucial presidential election season is right around the corner, but a few key constitutional questions remain unresolved, which could directly up in the 2024 race.

with the iowa caucuses just 23 days away, some of those issues are finally reaching the supreme court's purview, setting up the pivotal role that the nine justices will hold in the months ahead. yesterday, the supreme court denied special counsel jack smith's request to fast-track an appeal regarding donald trump's claim of presidential immunity. so wraparound, hear trump's lawyers argued that trump's role in questioning the results of the 2020 election was within the quote, outer perimeter, and quote, of his official presidential duties, and that would provide him with immunity from federal criminal charges. ordinarily, the appellate court would consider the matter since the trial judge, tanya chutkan, had ruled against donald trump on the matter, and only after that with the question be put to the supreme court. but smith requested that the supreme court circumvent the normal appellate process to quickly decide the question of presidential immunity. now it's an important question about the powers of the

presidency that the courts have rarely considered before, but it could determine whether the criminal election interference cases against trump in washington d.c. and in fulton county georgia can move forward on schedule or at all. now this decision from the supreme court does not mean that the case against donald trump is dead. far from it. the d.c. court of appeals actually has agreed to execute the case, and hearing is already scheduled by september the 9th. the supreme court could still weigh in on the matter, and the main facts be called upon to do so. however, this decision does threaten to delay the march 4th start date for trump's federal election interference trial since judge tanya chutkan was, as a normal matter of procedure, compelled to pause proceedings under case until this appeal is resolved. however, simultaneously, and even more urgent issue emerged this week that is certain to reach the supreme court and a number of days. the colorado supreme court court issued a groundbreaking

ruling that trump, the undisputed front runner for the republican presidential nomination, is an eligible to appeal on colorado's primary ballot because he does not qualify to be president. if the first court in the country to make that ruling against trump, which is based on section three of the 14th amendment of the united constitution, the united states constitution, the disqualification clause, which reads, in part, quote, no person shall hold in the office, civil or military, and the united states who, having previously taken an oath as an officer of the united states to support the constitution of the united states, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, end quote. a little court had previously ruled that the disqualification clause did not apply to the presidency because the president isn't an officer of the united states. one of the main points argued by donald trump's lawyers.

but the colorado supreme court struck down that thinking, writing quote, president trump asked us to hold that section three disqualifies every oath breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one, and then it fires of breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land. both results are inconsistent with the plain language in history of section three. however, due to the extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances of this case, the judges noted that if trump appealed, which he is certain to do, the order is staying basically until the supreme court to resolve the issue. that means that trump could still appear on colorado's primary ballots since the state is supposed to begin printing them on january 5th ahead of its primary on super tuesday, which is march 5th. but perhaps the most notable part of the colorado supreme court's decision is that it affirmed the lower courts ruling that the attack on the

capitol on january six was indeed an insurrection or rebellion, and the trump engaged in it. those are some of the key questions that the nine justices of the supreme court will have to confront when this case reaches them in the days ahead, and their decision could have far-reaching consequences, and similar lawsuits are currently pending in multiple states. i am joined now by one of the people who brought this issue to the forefront of the nation's public consciousness, and who has helped us understand the nuances of the case, but the esteemed formal federal judge g.a. michael lunyk, judge lunyk, thank you for being here. you and i have talked a couple of times this week, but it's not enough, because there is so much to this important case, this important 68-page ruling, that i want to talk to you again. so again, thank you for being with us. let's start with the colorado supreme court disagreeing with the lower court in colorado on one key point. i think that the president is an officer of the united

states. on the other hand, both courts agreed the january 6th was an insurrection in that donald trump engaged in it. colorado supreme court addressed that issue in the ruling by writing, although we acknowledge that these definitions vary in somewhere arguably broader than others, for purposes of deciding this case, we need not adopt a single, all-encompassing definition of the word insurrection. rather, it's suffices for us to conclude that any definition of insurrection for purposes of section three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the u.s. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country. h peacefand quote. judge, you believe that this will be the crux of the case if it reaches the supreme court? >> i do ali, and thank you for having me on this morning. the colorado supreme court's decision is historic and its

own right regardless of what the supreme court of the nine states does with respect to the 14th amendment question. it remains to be seen whether the supreme court will take up this particular case, but it certainly might. as you say, there are two essential critical issues for the interpretation of the 14th amendments disqualification clause that the colorado supreme court decided resoundingly decided. it was a masterful opinion of constitutional interpretation of the disqualification clause in the 14th amendment to the united states constitution in every single respect. it is unassailable, as a matter of constitutional law. as you noted, the colorado

supreme court reversed a lower court's decision that section three does not apply to the office of the president. the lower court had held that it did not even though the lower court, as you know, had held that the former president engaged in an insurrectional rebellion against the constitution of the united states. the colorado supreme court, and what is unassailable interpretation of section three, held an essence that the presidency is in office under the united states. one, and two, that the president is an officer of the united states. and three, that when the president takes the

constitutionally prescribed oath of office, he takes an oath to support the constitution of the united states within the meaning of the 14th amendment. that this is not just the plain and understandable interpretation, but it is grounded in the history of the cause and the history of the debate and the ratification history of the 14th amendment. it would be impossible for the supreme court to hold under the existing law that the president does not hold in office under the united states, ali. and turning to the insurrection, pivotal to that decision by the colorado supreme court is the definition that you read to your viewers this morning.

the colorado supreme court canvassed all of the possible definitions of insurrection or rebellion from the time of the framing and ratification of the 14th amendment, and there were a number of possible definitions. the colorado supreme court wisely chose the narrowest possible of those definitions and said it need not go broader, because that narrowest interpretation of insurrection or rebellion would extend to the former presidents conduct before, on, and after january 6th. >> i don't know how you remember, to answer my two questions, i hardly remember that i asked two questions. your brain is amazing, judge.

let me ask you about a point th s have made that disqualifyin a gop front runner is anti-democratic, even if it is legally sound. i want to quote from the new york times whe they wrote, the colorado supreme court's ruling that donald j trump's constitutionally ineligible to run for president again, takes one fundamental value against another, giving voters in a democracy the ght to pick their leaders versus ensuring that no one is above the law. mr. trump stus as the republican front runner for the presidential nomination despite his role that the events that culminated on january six 2021, has created severe tensions between these two principles. if the courts legal reasoning is correct, obeying the rule of law produces an anti-democratic result, end quote. you have pushback on this idea on social media. you think that is not a valid interpretation of what is going on here. >> i do not, and the passage

from the new york times story that you just read is just fundamentally wrong. it seems to me that no sooner them had the colorado supreme court ruled than the politicians, but also, surprisingly, to me, and disappointingly, the national media took up the cause of not enforcing the 14th amendment against the former president, notwithstanding it's clear application to the former president because of his conduct around january 6th. that is misleading, and yesterday i tweeted, or whatever one does these days on

former twitter, to address this point because it is up surpassing, surpassing importance to the resolution of the 14th amendment question. and they said in that tweet that it is the constitution itself, the constitution itself, ali, that tells us that disqualification is not anti-democratic. indeed, the constitution tells us that it is the conduct they can give rise to disqualification. to disqualification namely, and insurrectional rebellion. ye that is anti-democratic. to me, that is about as clear as in the document or constitution could make that point. i will say that instinctively,

instinctively, but instinctively only, it is a natural and expected reaction by all americans frankly, and i would hope not by the national media, but by americans who are less informed and knowledgeable about our constitution then the media supposed to be, but upon thinking about it, seriously, i think it is crystal clear, and it will be crystal clear to the american public, that it is the constitution of the united states that is disqualifying the former president of higher office if he is to be disqualified, to speak to the political warriors. it is not president joe biden, it is not the democrats, it is

not the anti trumpers. it is the constitution of the united states, and that is why i have said over the past week that this case tests america's commitment to its own democracy, the constitution, and the rule of law. section three of the 14th amendment allows for, and according to the colorado supreme court, requires a disqualification of the president. if he's disqualified, that is the constitutional answer and the law of the land, ali. >> jue, i want to ask you about a article at was written in the atlantic by adams over the other day. it is entitled, the colorado ruling calls the original lists buff bluff. it says, there are a lot of practical reasons for opposing trump's disqualification. one ishat it removes the choice of rejecting trp from

the electorate, which may seem undemocratic, even if done with constitutional provisions adopted by the people's csen representatives. another is that it could damage the legitima of democracy itself by appearing to confirm trump's allegations that the political system is rigged against him. these are all compelling reasons to avoid or disregard this provision, notwithstanding it's plain meaning and intent. a second rejection of trump at the ballot box seems like the least destabilizing outcome. the problem for a majority of the justices on the supreme court is that they are not supposed to care about any of this, to the point that you are just making. they are a regionalists, remember? you've made a similar argument that based on the plain language of this clause, donald trump by engaging in insurrection simply does not meet disqualification to hold public office again. this is tricky, right? if you are an original list on the supreme court, you say that this is what the thing says, then you can't be bothered by the noise outside. >> that's true, ali, and i had

the opportunity to read adam's piece, but based on what you said, i would say this, reiterating in part what i've said earlier. this is not politics. this is the constitution of the united states, and it poses for the supreme court of the united states a pure question of constitutional law. the supreme court of the united states is never to consider extrajudicial factors of considerations because of partisan politics or even politics writ large, let alone is it supposed to consider things like had been reported recently in the major media, and not reported, urged by the national media that rather than

interpret a constitution as it is written, the supreme court should instead fashion an opinion of statecraft, which is shorthand to those of us in the law to fashion a results under the constitution other than the one compelled by the constitution, hallie. >> judge, i appreciate that you are leaning into helping those of us who are not experts on the constitution or the law, particularly those of us in the media to understand this so that we don't sort of circulate the wrong message out there in our soapbox interpretations of these things, and we always appreciate your time. i want to remind our audience that you end lawrence tribe were on with us on august 19th when you first popularize this idea. you both gave credit to other people who have had done some of the work, but you came out here, you wrote the article in

the atlantic, and then you came on here to talk about, it and we appreciate you and your continued service to the country, sir thank you. >> thank, you ali. >> judge michael luttig is a former federal judge. we will be right back. be right back. zero heartburn. not some news that broke

late yesterday, to colorado paramedics have been convicted in the death of elijah mcclain. you remember back in 2019, this man 23 world mcclain was detained by police in aurora, colorado while walking home after a 9-1-1 call reported that the unarmed black man looked quote, sketchy. two paramedics injected mcclain with a dose of the powerful sedative ketamine after police had already put him in a chokehold and pen into the ground. on friday, a jury found the paramedics guilty of criminally negligent homicide. prosecutors claim the paramedics did not conduct basic health checks on maclean before giving him the ketamine,

nor did they check on him after administering it. doctors say the ketamine left mcclain near death and he died days later in the hospital. the paramedics, jimmy hubert and peter to cognac to be sentenced to years in prison. three police officers were also prosecuted in earlier trials. after his verdict, mcclain's mother was emotional. >> we did, it we did it! >> elijah mcclain was a massage therapist who loved animals. friends would say he would plays violin to comfort cats at a local animal shelter. he was 23 years old.

the subway series? it's the perfect menu lineup. just give us a number, we got the rest. number three? the monster. six? the boss. fifteen? titan turkey. number one? the philly. oh, yeah, you probably don't want that one. look, i'm not in charge of naming the subs. ♪ today, my friend you did it, you did it, you did it... ♪ centrum silver is now clinically shown to support cognitive health in older adults. it's one more step towards taking charge of your health. so every day, you can say, ♪ youuu did it! ♪ with centrum silver. -- ground offensive in gaza, the idf residence with central gaza move further south immediaty, indicating a new focus on the grndssault. but according to an agency within the united nations,

israel constructing those same gazans to evacuate to places where ongoing airstrikes are continuing to take place. the unrwa posted on social media earlier today, quote, there is nowhere for people to go, nowhere is safe. the humanitarian crisis is worsening in the enclave, but some aid is trickling in. the palestinian red crescent confirms that 70 trucks hearing humanitarian aid from the egyptian red crescent needed to gaza. 78 trucks before that on thursday. the world food programmes warning that a famine as half of gaza's population is starving, as reports of 90% of palestinians in gaza are eating what less than one meal a day. the political leader of hamas was in cairo last week for talks with egyptian american officials to another potential truce and hostage swap, but hopes of a breakthrough have been fading, with hamas saying that it won't hold any form of hostage talks as long as the hostilities in gaza continue. as those negotiations were

happening, the united nations katie council was voting on a resolution for more aid in gaza. the council adopted a watered down resolution calling for speeding -- in gaza, but an urgent suspicion of hostilities between israel and mastodon make it into the final version. with the united states of russia have seen from the vote. joining me is aaron david miller, former senior adviser for arab israeli negotiations at the united states state department and senior fellow at the carnegie endowment for international peace. he's the author of several books, including that much to promise land. americas elusive search for arab-israeli peace. for those of you constantly tweet and asked me for books to read, that would be an important one to read. erin, good to see you again. thank you for being here. this is a tough question and you are one of those people over the years. if you found yourself in this particular situation, where the hostages are still being held, which is a war crime, the

devastation of gaza's continuing, in which we believe more than 20,000 people are dead, and that is roughly 14,000 plus civilians. how do you get aside from these a tractable positions to at least get to a point, not talking at the future of gaza wait, now but to the end to this, get the hostages back and stop the killing in gaza. what would you do? what would you d o? five my five minutes with the president, first of all, thanks for having me. i would make it unmistakably clear that right now the objectives of israel and hamas are irreconcilable, and right, now i see no way out, i see no magic fix. the administration obviously has been pursuing policies that are extremely pro israeli, and i've had some success. they were not be any humanitarian aid and to gaza without biden's pressure on israel, and there would be no hostages released either, but

in terms of bringing the conflict to an end, i think it is almost possible impossible to do that. the israelis hopefully in january will fundamentally alter the nature of their ground operations, which should allow, because of a reliable humanitarian court into gaza, to ride the relief of this tortured an extraordinarily traumatized palestinian population deserves. but i don't see grand bargain here. not given israel's objectives to destroy hamas, and not giving hamas's objectives to survive and to essentially wait until international pressure builds for a cessation of hostilities, and their victories. >> he says something to me earlier in the week, and you said that if america meant it, many that you really have to change whether you're doing things, america has actual real leverage that goes beyond lloyd austin suggesting it in tel aviv, and as -- lincoln suggesting it, and joe biden himself suggesting it in

strong terms. there's no question that they are all seeing it. how does the rest of it happen? is it conceivable even though there are people in congress calling for? it is inconceivable that indications would be attached to the military aid that america gives israel? >> i would think that in january if there is no fundamental alteration and israeli military tactics or if the netanyahu government will put out leaflets out about the importance of humanitarian assistance, you could see american presidents don't like republican and democratic -- fighting with the israeli prime minister's. it's awkward, it's messy, and it's politically costly. but the americans have three options. number one, slow up or restrain the military assistance. number two, not just abstained, but vote for a security council resolution, which makes it

unmistakably clear, hey unbalanced resolution i might add, or alternatively, change their fundamental strategy, and agree that even though the president wants hamas destroyed, it's unlikely that's going to occur anytime soon, and push for a sensation of hostilities, which i think would in fact be a major defeat for the israelis, and a victory for hamas. so those are options. do i think that this president is going to adopt any of them? i think that the answer is, based on my experience and watching democrats and republican presidents for decades deal with israel for any number of reasons, i think the answer is probably not. >> israelis are united in their grief, and their desire to not have hamas controlled gaza ever again, and to get routed out, but in fact what we have again between united states and israel is a disagreement on what the outcome of this or

should be, and that is often the case in wars, right? tell me what your final goal is. israel says it is the elimination of hamas, and america's been pretty clear that that's not really a, goal it's not achievable. you can take some leaders out but it is deeper than a tactical war in gaza would result in. >> yeah, i wouldn't -- look, hamas has anywhere from 15 to 30,000 fighters and that is an organization -- however objectionable that idea is, the elimination of the state of israel and an islamic state. the majority, and -- the west bank has surged as a consequence of -- and there's enormous support for the october 7th terrorist surge among west bank or's, not so much among gazans. so look, i think that the realistic objective though, you cannot extinguish hamas as a organization, but you can reduce its capacity to govern gaza. you can create a set of

circumstances in which hamas would not have control over the politics, the economics, what goes into gaza, what comes out of gaza. that i think may actually be a realistic objective, but it is going to take a legitimate palestinian governing structure, probably after, elections in the interim, some sort of soup security force that would preside over the administration of humanitarian aid and the reconstruction of gaza, which will be enormous proposition. it's going to require time. right now, i know it's unsatisfying, ali, but i just don't have any good answers for you. >> and i ask you an impressive about it several times a week, when you're a guy who's written a lot of words on this, and you've been at the table, and that is what worries me. when you don't have answers, i worry for the region and the world, but you are honest with, us and we appreciate that. aaron david miller is a former senior adviser for arab-israeli

negotiations at the united states state department. he's the author of several, books including the much to promised land, americas elusive search for arab israeli peace. still ahead, in almost two months, the world marks two years since russia invaded ukraine, but it is important to remember how and when this all started. and it wasn't in 2022. i will have more on that next. re on that next. ♪ (mom) please forgive him. (carolers) ♪ it's all good - just a little awkward. ♪ (soloist) think we'll wrap this up. (vo) it's your last chance to turn any iphone in any condition into a new iphone 15 pro with titanium and ipad and apple watch se - all on us. that's up to $1700 in value. only on verizon. as we inch closer to the

third year of russia's invasion of ukraine, it's important to remember how this entire situation started, and that russian aggression towards ukraine did not just materialize out of thin air two years ago. when i return to ukraine last february, people asked me, why i came back. i told, them it was to cover the one year anniversary of the war, and most of them remind me that the war to fight the invasion of russia at the time actually been going on for nine years. they were referring to 2014,

when russia invaded and annexed crimea, peninsula and the -- southern ukraine along the northern coast of the black sea. russia and ukraine have had a complicated relationship for centuries, specifically when it comes to crimea, dating back to the crimean war in 1956. the strategically located peninsula, the headquarters of russia's once famed black sea fleet gives the russian military leverage not only in the black sea, but also in the mid greater mediterranean region. and 2012 after 21 years of independence, ukraine's government started negotiating a agreement that would've established political and economic ties between ukraine and the european union. the deal was wildly popular across ukraine, which was later than most of its soviet states to establish relationships with the west. but in november 2013, ukraine's president victor yanukovych decided at the last minute not to sign the agreement. ukraine's parliament had overwhelmingly proof the agreement with the eu but

russia had put pressure on yanukovych to address it, and that decision was met with outrage. mass protests which became known as that euromaidan erupted across ukraine. democrat is called for viktor yanukovych's resignation over his general corruption and abuse of power. the protests went on for months, demonstrators occupied government buildings like kyiv city hall. by january of 2014, many of the protests have turned into full on riots. on february 20th, the protests escalated dramatically and took a dramatic turn. police and government forces fired into the crowds of protesters in kyiv, almost 100 protesters and 15 police officers died. the eu tried to step in and threatened sanctions if the ukrainian government did not make an effort to de-escalate the violence. eventually, jankowicz and opposition leaders agreed to early elections and the

formation of an interim unity government, but his power base was crumbling, and so he fled kyiv ahead of an impeachment vote that strip him of the power of the presidency. and that is when russia came in. amid the political turmoil and ukraine, pro russia protesters against the ukrainian leadership that would replace yanukovych broke out across crimea, which because of russia's naval presence there has a large russian speaking population. groups of the mast armed men wearing uniforms without any insignia status rounding the airports in parliament buildings in crimea boseman turned out to be russian troops. they raised the russian flag, pro russia lawmakers and saw the leader of the russian unity party as crimea's prime minister. on march 6th of 2014, just two weeks after the deadly clashes in kyiv, the crimean parliament voted to secede from ukraine and join the russian federation. a public vote was scheduled on the 16th. an overwhelming 97% voted in

favor of joining russia. observers noted irregularities in the voting process, an armed man lurking at polling stations. within two days of that vote, putin met with the crimean leadership and signed a treaty, incorporating crimea into the russian federation. fast forward almost ten years, russia is trying to take all of ukraine now. the european union is playing a crucial role, once again. last week, despite ongoing battles that the u.s. congress to continue funding the ukraine war, the you agreed to open membership talks with ukraine. there is a full circle moment happening here. in 2014, and in 2022, ukraine turned inwards towards europe and away from russia. something any sovereign country should have the freedom to do, and was inundated by russian forces that arguably broke international law. ukrainians need the world's help now more than ever. aid is drawing out. republicans and congress

continue to hold up a bill that would give more money to ukraine's war efforts. congress has gone home for the holidays without coming to an agreement. ukraine simply does not have this time. on the other side of the break i will speak to two experts on ukraine and the wrath of vladimir putin. the ukrainian parliament member, alexei couture ankle, and ahead of the global justice campaign, bill crowder.

(♪♪) honey... honey... dayquil severe honey. powerful cold and flu symptom relief with a honey-licious taste. because life doesn't stop for a cold. dayquil honey, the daytime, coughing, aching, stuffy head, fever, honey-licious, power through your day, medicine. joining me now is alexei

goncharenko, a member of the ukrainian parliament. a permanent member of the assembly of the council of europe. also with us is bill browder, a ound post survey russia and vladimir putin. he's the head of the global magnitsky justice campaign. he is the author of the book freezing order, a true story of russian money laundering, order, and surviving veteran putin's raft. prior to that, read notice, a true story of high finance, murder, and one man's fight for justice. important books to understand what is going on now in russia. gentlemen, both of you, thank you for being with us. mr. goncharenko, it is always a pleasure to see you talk to us now you are one of those people in ukraine who is intimately involved with the integration with your oven away from russia. it has been a very tough month in ukraine particularly with america debating whether or not to send more funding and arms

to ukraine. you've got a real shot in the arm for the. what do you think about that? >> it is very important to ukraine. your story that you told to the audience, which is very important, i am also very happy to see you. you have been to ukraine many times. in oh everything, you have seen everything with your own eyes. you forgot to mention one very important topic, ukraine, in 1990 4:29 years ago, voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons. during that time, ukraine had the third biggest nuclear arsenal in the world. for the first time in human history we gave it up under the guarantees of the russian federation, which we can now law fat, the united kingdom, and the united states. when we were talking about support from the united states to ukraine it is not just about values it is not just about that it is in the best strategic interest of the united states to support our country, because we are

stopping tyranny and it is not just a fight for democracy it is also a legal obligation of the united states to support us. we would have nuclear weapons here today, we would've never been attacked. that is another thing to keep in mind. this was very tough month, we have good news for christmas. the european union made a decision to open negotiation talks about ukraine joining the european union. which is extremely important for us. >> thank you for pointing that out. the famous budapest memorandum in which the exchange for those nuclear weapons was done for ironclad guarantees of ukraine safety. that has been completely walked. on i appreciate that. bill, let's talk a little bit about the politics in russia right now. lamoureux putin has announced he is running for office again. polls indicate he will win and be prime minister, he will be president until 2030. his leading opponent, in prison,

alexei navalny is missing, he is gone. no one knows where he is. -- volodymyr karim ova, our mutual friend, is in jail for very long time in russia. like many other leaders in the world, vladimir putin understands that if he is not the president of russia, bad things will come his way. >> putin, basically, knows that if he is not the president he will lose his money, he will go to jail, and he will die. putin is a very selfish man. he doesn't want to die. in my opinion the reason why he started this war in the first place is not because of nato, it's not because of any grand vision of russian imperialism, he started this war as simply a way of creating a foreign enemy to gather up public opinion against a foreign enemy so they are not mad at him. unfortunately, as he is now desperately trying to cling on to power, more than any time, he needs this war.

anybody who is suggesting that there might be a possibility that he is going to compromise, they are living in a fantasy world. vladimir putin is going to push this, they're going to push russian soldiers to the death, he is going to kill ukrainian soldiers in the process. that is what we have to look forward to. that is what we have to deal with going into 2024. >> oleksiy we were together last february on the first anniversary in kyiv. too few times, actually. we had a snowy walk through bucha where we talked about some of the atrocities that have been committed there. you are not worried about the fact that we marked the second anniversary of this war, which will be in february of 2024, russia will feel more emboldened. other european states, including, potentially, nato states who are your neighbors, maybe more threatened. >> absolutely. exactly what bill browder told us. by the way, i wanted to say how

great the book was, how he was, you know, raising the flag and ringing the bell saying how putin is dangerous. unfortunately, not many people in the west have been doing this. fortunately, we have seen how he is dangerous. i feel again that many people in the west underestimated the danger from putin. many think today that, okay, putin has stopped. to use in ukraine. he is army lost a lot of people. i just want to tell you that the danger from putin in the world is bigger today than it was two years ago. why? because he feels emboldened. he feels he has survived the sanctions. his army's battle hardened. tell me what armies in the world know what is modern warfare in the 21st century? just two armies. the ukrainian and the russian. the russian army, he is raising

its numbers. the raw footage -- tommy camille just one reason why putin would stop. if he had any success in ukraine, he would never stop. he would never take the hundreds of thousands of soldiers to moscow to make some revolution, like it was this summer with prigozhin and the wagner group. it means that putin will attack again. the only question is where. maybe it will be kazakhstan. maybe it will be in georgia. maybe he will try article five of nato. take, for example, a baltic state. that will mean that american soldiers and officers will need to die stopping putin. today, we have a unique mom and a unique opportunity to stop putin in ukraine without any boots on the ground. with the courage of the ukrainian people. but we need this weaponry from the united states. all support starting from economic to real sanctions

against this awful tyranny. that is the chance of the world. >> i only have a minute left. i have heard danger that nato could be channels on this. hungry, for example, a nato country playing footsie with vladimir putin. >> hungary has blocked 50 billion dollars of eu funds for ukraine. this is money that, as alexei said, is desperately needed. if that money is not released, ukraine is running out of bullets. they are running out of heavy ammunition. russia has a unlimited supply of young man to be killed in battle. and bullets and ammunition. it is a truly desperate moment for ukraine and the united states needs to supply the military that was promised. the eu needs to supply that military aid. we need to get around hungarians blocking it. we need to get around a small group of far-right republicans blocking it. if we don't, has oleksiy said it will then be american in

european soldiers getting killed defending nato allies. that is something, that is not a distant terrible idea. that is what putin and his people have promised. they are promising that the baltic states are next. those states then put us in the firing line. oleksiy goncharenko, a member of ukraine's parliament. bill browder the head of the global magnitsky justice campaign. history will remember you both on the for your work and trying to preserve democracy in ukraine. trying to make us understand what russia is really up to. that does it for me, thank you for watching. catch me tomorrow 10 am to noon eastern here on velshi. tomorrow evening at five pm on msnbc's politicsnation i'm joining my friend, reverend al sharpton, for the 14th annual rev awards. stay right where you are. alex with picks up our coverage after a quick break.

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening.