slaves. and go up to become author, historian. and even earned a ph.d. at harvard. his organization created need roe a team at week which later became black history month in 1926. the doctor once said this, i -- fear that is no worthwhile traditions it becomes a negligible factor in thought, -- in the thought of the world. and it stands in danger of being exterminated. president biden posted a quote today from civil rights activists camellia warden where she said, you can never know where you are going unless you know where you have been. so, this month, let's remember where we have been and recognize that our only way forward is by marching together. and please make sure to tune in sunday at nine pm right here on msnbc streaming also on peacock msnbc correspondent for mainly the civil rights attorney and friends of the show, charles

forman for a very special broadcast. the last man in america, the road to 2024. you do not want to miss it. and, on that note, i wish you all a very good night. i appreciate you being here. for all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thanks for staying up late with me. i'll see you again tomorrow. . i'll see you again tomorrow. the new york times is reporting that trump former finance chief, allen weisselberg, is in negotiations to plead guilty to perjury for allegedly lying on the stand during trump's civil fraud trial. and while we don't know for certain wished alleged line he might be owning up to, the testimony of the new york times points to the thing that they heavily suggest maybe the lie in this case. it's maybe the most trumpy thing ever.

just a few months ago, back in october, allen weisselberg took the stand to defend the trump organization and new york attorney general, letitia james, had a civil fraud lawsuit. that is the case for trump and its company are being accused of defrauding investors by, among other things, inflating the value of their assets to obtain favorable loans from banks. one of the things that mr. weisselberg was asked about under oath, was donald trump's penthouse apartment in trump tower. the one that looks like -- they believe that this nonsense in particular is a glaring example of donald trump's over valuation. there are a monster chandelier's in their marble walls. but this was listed on annual financial statements measuring more than 30, 000 square feet when in reality, it is just over 10, 000 square feet. it is a third of that size. which in new york city real estate is a colossal overstatement. and when mr. allen weisselberg was asked, again, under oath, if he had anything to do with that bonkers overstatement, he said i never focused on it, to be honest with you.

it was almost relative to trump's net worth so i really didn't focus on it. it really appears to be a lie under oath. it turns out that mr. trump and mr. weisselberg hadn't just been inflating the size and value of the apartment to the banks, whether it was for eagle, or for his, brander both. trump has spent decades of being obsessed with making the forbes 400 list. that is the list of the 400 wealthiest americans, which for the record, donald trump did not make this year. and trump's relentless quest to be known as one of the wealthiest americans meant that for decades now, trump and his

allies, including allen weisselberg, have relentlessly lobbied for forbes magazine. inviting reporters to that penthouse apartment, bragging to them on the phone, and on email about how large and valuable it was, petitioning for him to be included in trump's net worth. the forbes reporters kept those. they knew none of this was -- and after allen weisselberg testified in the trial, forbes announced a review of all the emails and notes, some of which the attorney generals office does not possess, it shows that mr. weisselberg absolutely thought about donald trump's apartment and played a key role in trying to convince forbes reporters over the course of several years, but it was worth more than it really was. in 2012, weisselberg asked why the magazine had a large private estates for other billionaires, and not trump. weisselberg said that trump should be including the penthouse. he says it's worth more than 88 million. next year, 2013, weisselberg

kept pushing. the forbes reporter wrote to a colleague now allen says it is worth 200 million. allen. in 2014, weisselberg sent sales records for a luxury apartment building near trump, and then applied 80 per square rate calculation to demonstrate the value of trump's apartment which he said was 30, 000 square feet. in 2015, donald trump toured three journalists around his penthouse with allen weisselberg at his side. during that tory, donald trump, again, claimed the apartment was 33, 000 square feet. now, after forbes ran that story, proving that allen weisselberg did in fact focus on donald trump's apartment a lot, allen weisselberg abruptly stopped testifying to the new york attorney general. again, we do not know for certain that this was the alleged lie that weisselberg is reportedly negotiations to plead guilty to perjury for. but man, it certainly seems likely. the new york times gives us one major clue to what is behind the key negotiations. the times reports that the thing that puts these negotiations in motion is the renewed threat that manhattan

d. a. , alvin bragg, might file new charges against mr. weisselberg. and those charges could mean the 76 year old weisselberg could be placed once again behind bars. now, last year, mr. weisselberg spent 100 days in jail for his role in helping engineer a wide range in tax rug schemes at trump's family business. during that case back in 2022, not only did weisselberg plead guilty, but part of his plea deal required to testify a civil trial against the trump organization. what does all and weisselberg's potential guilty plea here mean for donald trump? the new york times puts it tonight, although the agreement is unlikely to immediately affect mr. trump, it could strengthen mr. bragg's hand before the former presidents trial. it could deter other witnesses and mr. trump circle from lying on the stand.

perjury charges could discredit mr. weisselberg, who has disputed details of mr. banks evidence. in other words, this could all be quite material to that criminal case against donald trump, which is scheduled to begin on march 25th. tonight, just hours ago, we got even more breaking news that makes that all the more important. tonight, jack smith several election interference case is dropped off the d. c. courts calendar. now, that case originally had been scheduled for march 4th, but now, due to delays caused by trump presidential immunity appeal, it looks like that date is off the book. very much tbd.

that is huge news for manhattan district attorney, alvin bragg. bragg had previously made clear that he would defer to the federal cases of there was a scheduling conflict, but with jack smith's case potentially delayed until who knows when, that could very well clear d. a. bragg to take donald trump to trial as early as march 25th. what happens if one of the key difference witnesses in the first and maybe the only criminal trial that donald trump is likely to face, and sub behind bars? joining me now is suzanne craig, new york times investigative reporter, focused like a hawk on the finances and joyce vance, former district attorney and professor at the university of alabama school of law. it is great to see you both, thank you for being here tonight. apart from the most trumpy potential perjury ever, of course it comes back to donald trump penthouse size. first, if you could, how do you understand allen weisselberg, who is so involved in this valuation of the trump penthouse, is on the phone to reporters, emailing them,

really trying, this thing is worth a lot of money, and then he goes and says under oath, that was never my thing. i wasn't really that concerned about the valuation of that. >> absolutely that is a hard one. maybe they had amnesia when they got up there that day. i just want to say, to start out with, shout out to the reporter involved in that reporting who was able to almost immediately bring it to light, and also to the times, from my colleagues for that, this great story, it was masterfully done with a lot -- allen weisselberg who we have not talked about for it seems

like yours. and he could probably say a couple of months. but where we left off, they were looking at charging him for misrepresenting or lying to an insurance company about an asset saying that it had evaluation on it that it didn't. and then it sort of went on the backburner. now, all of a sudden, this is popped up. right ahead of this trial. it definitely looks like they're trying to send a message to other witnesses about the perils of lying on the stand. but it is incredible just to see what forbes was able to almost immediately surfaced on allen weisselberg seemingly you know, years-long campaign to have the value of that penthouse put much higher than

it should've been. >> i mean, too, the reporter who dealt with mr. weisselberg and then i believe, correct me if i am wrong, i believe he was in the room when weisselberg was just plainly lying on the stand. to me, that suggests, and this is after allen weisselberg already served time, it level of a sensitive committee on the part of at least the trump defendants but not trump himself when it comes to matters of the court. it is shocking to me that it would be so brazen. it shouldn't be, should it? >> it's incredibly brazen. particularly when you think about prosecutors sensitivity to perjury. perjury is one of those charges that if you can prove it, you bring it, because it is so central to the importance of

truth telling, and the criminal justice system, but it is worth noting a couple of things, alex, first, off perjury charges are hard to make. we can't really assess whether there is a strong case here without seeing the actual question that he was asked and his answers. there has to be a clear much with no room in order for it to be perjury. i think that that is important and this is reporting that negotiations are underway. we know how fragile that can be. anyone who lived through the hunter biden falkland ridge stands that until the court, until the judge accepts the plea of guilty in the courtroom, there is no deal. >> can i follow up on that, joyce? i think that's a very important word of caution that that is not by any stretch and could absolutely fall apart. i'm sure the reporting in the new york times helped the prosecutors case here. if it does go through, what are

the implications for other witnesses in trump's orbit who are watching the treatment of allen weisselberg? >> it is exactly why prosecutors go after perjury, with so much for us. it really does send a message to other witnesses in a case. i've been involved in cases where we prosecuted someone for perjury in the grand jury. and you see the other witnesses who are trying to decide just how much they can get away with, take note, so in this case i think it is really important. one thing it probably serves to keep allen weisselberg off of the witness stand as a defense witness for donald trump. he has always defined the normal expectations with someone who completes a guilty plea that they will cooperate for prosecutors as part of that deal. he never fully cooperated in any case. but keeping him off the stand and sending out a caution to other witnesses would be important for alvin bragg at this point. >> can you talk a little bit about the role that allen weisselberg has played thus far, and what him not taking a stand in trump's defense with the implications of that might be?

>> well, he has been long president and donald trump's life, he came from trump's operation and knows i would say where everything is buried at the trump organization. he's incredibly familiar with the finances and people remember the criminal trial a few years ago. i think that he was found guilty in what went to rikers for not -- for avoiding a payroll tax. they were giving out perks to employees and he got some of them in there was no tax paid on them. that is where we are at now. then we are headed into a hush money payment trial potentially. we learned tonight that it could go ahead on march 25th but we still don't know. alvin bragg's office has been preparing for that and we will see whether or not he is central to that. he was in the room and we saw a lot of it with michael cohen. he was in the middle of it. so i think that there was a lot of pressure on weisselberg and a lot of focus on him and what he knew and potentially if he ends up on the witness stand what he will say. times is reporting that they

don't expect him to be on the witness stand. i think part of what is going on here is trying to discredit him. he's clearly not cooperating so they don't want him called up on the other side to potentially say something in defense of donald trump or knockdown evidence that could come up. >> joyce, it's been pointed out that it feels like it has been years since we have heard of the name allen weisselberg. that is in part due to the fact that there's a lot of tiling happening right now. potential trailing right now. but as we have more breaking news tonight about the march 4th federal election interference case that day has disappeared from the courts calendar, it sure looks like that is not happening in march or maybe even april. which means, joyce, is that the criminal trial most on track as far as holding donald trump accountable for something is the alvin bragg case. would you disagree with that? >> no. i think that's absolutely right at this point. the alvin bragg case, which has often been discounted as the least important of the cases has been such a funny idea of the former president has been indicted four times.

we have to talk about which case is less serious. this case, though, is about election interference. this is 2016 on the eve of the election. trump wants to make sure that voters do not hear a very damaging piece of information about his personal life. so he engages in this complicated scheme. now charged by the district attorney in manhattan to influence the outcome of that election. this, i think, is a fitting first case to try him on and i expect that it will try as a much more serious crime than some people have suggested it is. >> the other piece, again, how many cases can we talk about in one discussion walk? the judge has not issued his fine for donald trump, which they are asking to be 300 and $70 million. this is a different case. here's the evidence,

potentially, the trump organization potentially pleading guilty to inflating assets, and then lying about it on the stand. if you are the judge, and you are looking at this reporting, do you think that influences the way that he thinks about potential fraudulent behavior at the trump organization? >> i think that he's got an eye on it. but i think that he's on to it. he's already passed down this case, it was already decided on the summary. but we already entered the courtroom to decide with the damages are. so i think he is probably watching it tonight. i think his number and what it will come down to is going to be that he once said there was a courtroom full of evidence, and i think that's probably what he's weighing as he prepares the decision, which we are expecting in the end of january. we're into february. i think in the next few weeks we will see it. >> a lot of waiting for a lot of big news.

suzanne, thank you for joining me as always. our house expert, please stick around, because i do want to get your reaction to neuro porting. more breaking news about one of the other cases that trump is facing that went down in florida. it is about a locked closet any secret room down at mar-a-lago that the fbi reportedly did not check when searching for trump's classified documents. that's up. plus, half the legal team that had beat donald trump twice will be there to discuss the single most important thing that resulted in his conviction. that is next. conviction. that is next.

with the majority of my patients with sensitivity i see irritated gums and weak enamel. sensodyne sensitivity gum and enamel it relieves sensitivity helps restore gum health and rehardens enamel. i am a big advocate of recommending things that i know work. hey, brent! if you had to choose, would you watch paint dry or compare benefits plans? compare benefits. gusto makes it easier to find the right plan for my team. i think i'm going to need new glasses. no problem. you're covered. choose benefits without the mess.

you can make money the hard way as a bullfighter t or a human cannonball... or save money the easy way, with xfinity mobile. existing customers can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan for a year! not only will you save hundreds but you'll also be joining millions who have connected to america's most reliable 5g network. sure is a lot safer than becoming a stuntman for money. get a free line of unlimited intro for a year when you buy one unlimited line. plus, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us.

>> that was cassidy hutchison testifying for the january 6th committee about the time when president trump hurled his lunch at the wall. the wall in the white house. trump has denied that this ever happened, but since then, we've only gotten more evidence that suggests mr. trump has a tendency towards ten terms when he doesn't get his way. today, politico published an interview with one of the lawyers representing e. jean carroll in her defamation case against trump. and that interview, she describes how trump behaved during a deposition in one of her previous cases against him. she recalls that it was about 11:30 in the morning and i said sir i have one more topic that i want to cover but is it okay after i cover that we break for lunch? and then you can kind of see his brain working, and he says you are here at mar-a-lago, what do you think you're going to do for lunch? and i said, well, i have spoken to your lawyers about that issue and the graciously offered to provide us with lunch. at which point trump took the exhibit which was a good two feet high, and threw it across the table. these angry outbursts are now on the most common place in the courtrooms of trump's numerous trials, to fight the fact that this is very unusual behavior generally speaking. trump's actions during the defamation trial were so disruptive that the judge threatened to kick him out of

court. mr. trump, i hope that i do not have to consider excluding you from the trial, i understand you are very eager for me to do that. mr. trump, i would love it. judge kaplan, i know you would, you just can't control yourself in these circumstances, apparently. by the end of that trial, trump's tantrums were on full display for even the jury after he stood up, after he walked out of the room during closing arguments. and trump's new york civil fraud trial, they repeatedly had these outbursts, for speaking out of turn and for throwing fits in the courtroom. again, not the typical behavior of most people in a courtroom and certainly not most defendants. even if a lot of that normal behavior is pretty normal stuff, pretty normal trump stuff at this point, they seem to provide a window into the way that donald trump thinks about himself. right now, we are awaiting a ruling from the appeals court over trump's claim that he should have absolute immunity for anything that he did or said as president. and that claim of immunity is more than just a legal dissent. it would seem to be almost an explicit statement about how things in his relationship are to the rule of law. mainly that he's not bound by it. he could do and say, and throw whatever he wants, even catch up. and while this has become central to his legal defense, it is also a huge liability in a court of law. as e. jean carroll's lawyer, robert kaplan told politico, our whole thesis was that this is someone who can't and won't follow the rules. so one would think that while you are in the courtroom with the jury acting like a bully and not following the courtroom rules as instructed by the judge, that would be a bad strategy. the single, most important thing that convicted donald trump both from his deposition and from the trial, is donald trump own behavior.

it is this concept of the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to him. someone who has experienced trump's courtroom tantrums firsthand, sean crowley, co- counsel in the e. jean carroll case joins me here in studio, coming up next. up next. hey! sarah! if you had to choose would you listen to elevator music all day or deal with payroll compliance? payroll compliance, for sure. gusto automatically calculates and files my taxes for me. hold up, compliance? easier? choose payroll compliance without the ups and downs. that's working with gusto.

♪ parodontax ♪ blood when brushing could be the start of a domino effect of gum disease. all of these signs could lead to worse.

parodontax is clinically proven to reverse the signs of early gum disease. parodontax, the gum experts.

>> this is a ridiculous case. we are appealing it. she didn't know anything about me. she didn't know when it happened, there was nothing, people are looking at that case as a disgrace. we are appealing that case, we had a very hostile judge, we are appealing that case, a ridiculous case. >> that was donald trump this week responding to the jury verdict in the e. jean carroll case where he was ordered to pay 83 point $3 million for defamation. joining me now is one of the attorneys who represented e. jean carroll. thank you for joining me. >> thank you for having me. >> first of all, she didn't know anything about me, she didn't know what had happened, there was nothing. donald trump is not really mentioned e. jean carroll's name since the jury handed down the verdict.

that edge on to the line of defamation right there? >> he's definitely getting closer. but i think that he's obviously had someone advising him before he makes the statements, which i think is different from how he has behaved throughout the last four years, and certainly in the lead up and during trial. we will see what happens, but we are counting this as a, when it has been a week and he has not defamed her which is probably a record. >> it is such a testament to the self indulgence, with which he has conducted himself. i want to talk about what robbie kaplan brought up, obviously since her co-counsel, the outburst in the courtroom. she contends that that is the thing that secured the conviction. his inability to contain his rage. can you talk about how central that was in your psychological

strategy, if nothing else? >> i'll tell you, going into the trial we didn't really know what was going to happen. we didn't know if he was going to show. up there was a previous trial in may of last year where the issue was whether he sexually assaulted e. jean, or whether he defamed her in another statement. he didn't show up for that trial. just a side note, whether he sexually assaulted someone, the issue was whether he has to pay for that, he shows up. >> tells you about priority. >> exactly. we didn't know going in whether he was going to be there, or how he was behaved, if he was there. our strategy from the beginning is we are just going to come in and tell the facts, and argue the law, and hopefully the jury believes us and believes e. jean. but then, as we saw his

behavior, we started to get the sense that it was probably going to help our case. i think, i said before, lawyers and witnesses are used to telling the jury about what happened in the past. there isn't a real life example. in this case, there really was. it started with him muttering things, and shaking his head, and rolling his eyes, and it progressed into actually storming angrily out of the courtroom a couple times. including during closing. so our whole point was he doesn't follow the rules, and he's acting that out. >> literally offering a case that he was found liable. robbie also mentioned the jury, reading the jury in all of this, it was a hard jury to read and there was a moment at the end. how many men and how many women? and there is one guy who after they delivered the verdict makes eye contact with e. jean carroll and smiles, is that right? >> yeah. >> given the fact that they were hard to, read how much do you think that seeing trump's -- during closing arguments effectively sealed the deal in terms of your argument?

>> i think it definitely helped. i never like to read juries. i think it just jinxes, and you don't know why someone makes the face that they make. some jurors look at, you some don't. i don't want to read too much into that. i think the fact that most of them remained pretty stoic throughout the whole trial, even when there were these crazy antics really meant that they were taking the role seriously. that they were like we are not going to judge this until the end. there were a couple of points where -- there were a couple laps where things were just so funny, or crazy, who could contain themselves? by and large, they really just sat there, paid attention, and they did not portray how they were feeling on their faces. >> an amazing job they did. and they've been encouraged to stay anonymous given the history of the guy. and robbie kaplan talks about -- we've been talking on the show, the way in which trump -- everyone, but especially judges, and especially prosecutors. and, you know, robbie, who

argued this case, says that she didn't really take that much attention to you. but she got up there in closing arguments and you are pointing out donald trump. and she makes a note of how brave that was. and i think, you know, especially for those of us who have never prosecuted trump, or went after him in a civil trial, can you talk a little bit about the psychology of that and your ability to point a finger at arguably one of the most menacing public figures and -- >> robbie did the closing, and i got to get up and rebut the argument that she had made, which usually is a pretty fun thing because it is not -- you are just kind of responding. so, robbie's approach was i'm just going to tell it like it is, i'm going to ignore all of the noise, i am going to not pay attention when this guy gets up and walked out of the courtroom. alina then went and she really brought up the temperature. and was shouting and making points that we view as not only wrong, but pretty offensive.

like e. jean asked for this. e. jean has benefited from the fact that this guy sexually assaulted her and defamed her. so, i was feeling pretty fired up at that time. i didn't really think about it as i am going to go up here in point at the former president. i thought this is just a guy who has done a lot of really bad things and he behaved like a five year old for the last two weeks. i want to make sure that the jury sees that. and so that is what i did. and he kind of glared at me, and i was like, okay, you're not going to really scare us. i think that e. jean has said in a couple of interviews that she was very, very, very terrified when she learned that he was coming. he was coming. she didn't know what to expect. and the moment when she started testifying when she saw how he was behaving, it just became clear to her that he was, in

her words, nothing. that is kind of what happened. >> wow. i will defend journalism for chronicling trump's mendacity and his threats, because i think it is important, since he is a prominent public figure. but to not buy into the fear that he seeks to create is one way of countering the poison harvested he speaks about. >> it is a lot easier to do that when there are not tv cameras, and when he's not at a rally, it's a lot easier with a judge who is keeping things under control, and runs the courtroom like a tight ship. >> let's hope other prosecutors take note of how you handled him and how must caplan handled him. congratulations on a very big deal for not just e. jean carroll, but i think for a lot of women. and people in american society generally. it is great to see you, i hope that you get some rest, sean crowley, thank you so much. we have more ahead tonight, including whether the fbi may have left behind classified

documents behind a locked closet in a hitting room during its search in mar-a-lago. we will have more on that after the break. the break.

>> tonight, abc news is reporting special counsel jack smith's team have questioned several witnesses in its documents case about a closet and hidden room that the fbi failed to check when it executed a search at mar-a-

lago. the fbi seized more than 100 classified documents. we know from jack smith's indictment of trump that many of those documents had previously been kept in boxes on a ballroom stage, lining the walls of a bathroom, and spilled on the floor of a storage room. storage room. according to the indictment, trump eventually had those documents moved. but abc news reports that in june of 2022, while trump's lawyer evan corcoran was searching that storage room for classified documents, trump allegedly asked a longtime mar- a-lago employee to change the lock on a closet door that the secret service had simply simply been in and trump wanted the key. two months later, when agents reached a closet during their search, they could not locate a key for it. they were told that the space behind the door went nowhere. they decided not to break it open. nbc sources say that in addition to the closet the fbi also failed to search a hidden room connected to trump's bedroom. back with us to discuss this new development, joyce vance, former u.s. attorney in the

northern district of alabama. joyce, thank you for sticking around. i don't know much about fbi raids. they've never raided my house. thank you. but it just seems like usually they check all the locked doors, doesn't it? >> you know, the place that i most want to search is behind the locked door and in the hidden secret room. and the search warrants certainly covered them and because the search warrant was for a broad and permitted agents to search any rooms at mar-a-lago that trump and staff had access to, and where these documents, the classified material could have been stored. that would have clearly covered those spaces. >> it reminded me of the washington post reporting, i believe it was december 2022, that fbi field agents were initially reluctant to get involved with the mar-a-lago

raid. there was tension between the executive branch of the fbi, if you will, and the field agents who would actually have to go into mar-a-lago. does this suggest to you that maybe they took trump at his word at face value in a way that perhaps they should have not? >> you know, i'm not sure what to make of it. i don't know that anyone from the washington field office went down to execute this search warrant. that's a good question. more likely it would have been conducted by agents out of the miami office. there's no reason to believe that they would not have gone to the full contours of the search. so frankly this one is a bit of a head-scratcher. even if they wouldn't believed, for instance, not a lot closet was beyond the gamut of their

search warrant, they could have hunkered down and gone back to the judge for additional permission before they left the premises. that's not an unusual thing that you do during extra caution of a search warrant when you encounter a situation that you haven't fully anticipated and you want to make sure that the search does not go beyond what you are authorized to do because then you lose your ability to use that evidence. so sometimes prosecutors to go back and ask the judge for an additional warrant or an amended warrant. but that didn't happen here. >> given trump's reported interest in changing the lock, this is the day evan corcoran is doing a clatter clearance in the storage room, trying to find classified documents, trump asked someone else to change the lock and give him the key. given trump's own personal alleged interest in this closet, why wouldn't jack smith go back to get this? at this stage of the game it

seems like we're never going to find out what was in that room. is that fairly accurate? >> it's very interesting. i think the reporting suggests that they didn't learn about the timing of the change on the lock until some months after they had executed the warrant. and perhaps they had other information that suggested that whatever documents maybe were in there at one point had been moved. perhaps they felt comfortable that they had recovered everything. the government's primary objective is to restore to the government all those classified materials, so one has a reason to think that they are reason to think that there was classified material located at mar-a-lago but they weren't able to obtain voluntarily that they would have gone back with a warrant for more. >> joyce, can we talk about the mar-a-lago case going into trial and what your level of optimism is in terms of who's going into a courtroom before november of this year?

>> i haven't used the word optum is in the same sentence with the mar-a-lago case for a long time. it's a simple case in terms of how to get the case ready for trial. it should've been a trial. the judge seems intent on slow walking it. what she's up against her own deadline to hold a section for hearing on the classified information. and of course prosecutors have the ability, if they don't like her rulings there, to take an interlocutory appeal ahead of trial. i have always been >> -- there would be a strong case here for the 11th circuit, given the law in our circuit, to suggest that she should step aside. not because she has any clear bias but because given her history with this defendant and these cases and the earlier issue involving the search at mar-a-lago, public confidence is better served with a better judge on the case. there are a lot of ifs in that

sentence. but if this case gets to the point where jack smith does decide to take an interlocutory appeal on this issue than perhaps there would be reason for optimism if this case were to go to another judge. >> wow. that's a lot of ifs before we get to the word optimism. joyce vance, you are wise, thank you for your time tonight my friend. we have one more story for you tonight. where things stand as the u. s. prepares for a retaliatory attack in a for a drone strike in jordan that killed three u. s. service members. former cia director john brennan joins me, right after this break. ins me, right after this break.

>> woman: what's my safelite story? i'm a photographer. and when i'm driving, i see inspiration right through my glass. so when my windshield cracked, it had to be fixed right. i scheduled with safelite autoglass. their experts replaced my windshield and recalibrated my car's advanced safety system. ♪ acoustic rock music ♪ >> woman: safelite is the one i trust. they focus on safety so i can focus on this view. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.' xfinity is giving away ten grand to a new lucky winner 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.

>> so this is a dangerous moment in the middle east. we will continue to work to avoid a wider conflict in the region. but we will take all necessary actions to defend the united states, our interests, and our people. and we will respond when we choose, where we choose, and

how we choose. i don't think the adversaries are over one and done mindset. and so they have a lot of capability. i have a lot more. >> tensions remain high in the middle east of the u.s. prepares to deliver retaliatory strikes for the attack enjoyment killed three american service members and wounded more than 40 others. at this moment it's still unclear what exactly will happen and where. the u.s. has blamed an umbrella group of iranian-backed militias, islamic resistance in the iraq, for these attacks, and has indicated that any action would be enduring, not simply just a onetime strike. joining me now, former cia director john brennan. director brennan, thank you for being here. i wonder what the sort of stipulation not a onetime strike suggest to you in terms of what the white house is thinking about. >> well, i think as the iranian proxy groups in the region have demonstrated, they continue to carry out attacks against u.s.

interests. so i think the biden ministration recognizes a gonna have to keep a sustained efforts to keep them from carrying out these attacks. i suspect we're getting closer to the commencement of these strikes. i suspect we're going to be directed against these groups that reside in syria, iraq, and yemen. there also will be target against the elements that may have participated in some of these attacks against u.s. interests. including some of the members of the al-quds course, part of the iranian revolutionary guard that works very closely with these groups. so i do think we're gonna see something sustained. it's going to be other than what has happened to date, but i do think that the focus is going to be on those groups in those three countries. >> you mention al-quds force. can you talk about the relationship between iran and its central organization and these iranian-backed militias? and what the implications are in terms of deterrence? they're operating in a kind of, they share some of the same goals but there is a different

sort of value set, potentially, between these umbrella groups and iran proper. can you talk a bit more about how that relationship works? >> you're right, alex. a lot of these groups that are local groups, whether you're talking about the houthis in yemen or hezbollah in iraq or others that are in syria. they do have local agendas. but yet the iranian support them because a lot of times they are co-religion. -est shia extremist groups, militia groups that are in league with the iranians as far as trying to push u.s. interests out of the area, u. s. military forces out of the area as well. so iran provides them training, which gives support as well as expertise, allows them to build up these capabilities that they use against a local adversaries. certainly the houthis have used their capabilities against their yemeni adversaries, but also now these books have the wherewithal to carry out attacks against a national shipping. so iran plays a strong role here, but the united states with the sustained strikes are going to be coming soon, they're gonna be sending a

clear signal terrell around to cease and desist, when united states going to carry out its efforts to degrade the new capabilities. but at this point i don't think we're going to go against iran proper inside iran. >> you mentioned the iranian revolutionary guard corps, and after the assassination of -- there was a lot done to assassinate to de-escalate what could've been an explosive situation. given iran played such an important role in these groups responsible for the death of our service members, is there a role for back channel policy? i was surprised to the national security spokesperson said there are not any current communications with iran that he could speak to. >> well i think probably are not having direct communications with iran but there are intermediaries that are used. the one that soleimani used to head out before he was killed but it is still very active. it's still engaged in cultivating the relationship, spilling up capabilities with these forces. so i think they're gonna be

very active. but united states does work with various elements in the region. we'll have some contacts with those who earned a direct contact with the force of the iranian revolutionary guard. and we sending signals that there will be more in store if iranians will continue to go down this path of this type of military pressure on u.s. forces in the region as well ours against international shipping another targets. >> you're talking about a succinct approach. there's also been floated, some reporting i think nbc news house as, well but the biden administration is looking into recognizing a palestinian state. is that the carrot in all of? this does that have a de- escalatory effect on all of this, the idea that u.s. is trying to meaningfully change the dynamic in gaza? >> i think iran's going to put pressure on the united states. the very interested in maintaining the revolutionary credentials. i do think it's critically important we're going to try to get ahead of any of this

violence in the region to pursue a two-state solution, to make sure that the that the palestinian people, the palestinian people not hamas, they realize that there is a court for their aspirations for statehood. this is a long and difficult road ahead. but i do know that the biden administration wants to keep that hope alive and keep the hope that there's gonna be a prospect of establishment of relations between saudi arabia and israel. but these are all very complex and complicated issues that are going to take continued work on the part of our diplomats. >> former cia director john brennan, it's always so good to speak to you. that is our show for this evening. now it's time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening, alex. it is here for the favorite -- is gonna join us this hour. he is of course the miracle worker of ohio, the only democrat who seems to be able to get elected