be no pressure on him to worry about civilian casualties. it would be terrible. there's just one bipartisan point that i want to make which is that you hear all of this talk against iran, and that is always code for revenge, or some sort of military campaign. no one is that they're making a case for diplomacy. since the periods of time when we saw the attacks on u. s. forces, in iraq and syria, you either stop or slow down when the u. s. and iran were engaged in either directly or through some other country. that is how we keep diplomacy i. >> totally agree.ep diplomacy i. thank you very much and that is all in on this thursday night. thank you, my friend. we're going to start this hour with breaking news. "the new york times" is reporting trump's 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 which lie mr. weisselberg may be owning up to, the testimony "the new york times" points to, the thing they heavily suggest may be the lie in this case is maybe the most trumpy thing ever. just a few mounts ago back in october allen weisselberg took the stand to defend in new york attorney general letitia james $240 million lawsuit. that's where trump and other defendants are being accused of inflating assets. one of the things mr. weisselberg was asked about under oath was the size of donald trump's penthouse apartment in trump tower, the one that looks like louie xivth on acid.

the a.g. believes this asset in particular is a glaering example of donald trump's fraudulent overevaluation. yes, there are monster chandeliers and marble walls, but for years this three-story penthouse was listed on annual financial statements as being 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 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 the triplex to be honest with you. it was almost deminnist so i really didn't focus on it. which really appears to be a lie under oath. it turns out mr. trump and mr. weisselberg hadn't just been inflating the size and value of

his apartment to the banks whether it was for his ego or for his brand or both, trump has spent decades obsessed with making the forbes 400 list. that's 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 forbes magazine, inviting reporters to that penthouse apartment, bragging to them on the phone and on e-mail about how large and valuable it was, petitioning for it to be included in trump's net worth. and the forbes reporters kept those receipts. they knew that none of this was deminmist. and after allen weisselberg testified in the trial they reviewed notes showed 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 that it was worth more than it really was. in 2012 weisselberg asked a forbes reporter why the magazine counts large private estates for others and not trump. the next year 2018 weisselberg kept pushing. a forbes reporter wrote to a colleague now allen says it's worth $200 million. in 2014 weisselberg sent forbes sales records for a luxury apartment building near trump's and then applied a square feet rate calculation to demonstrate the value of trump's apartment, which he said was 30,000 square feet. in 2015 donald trump toured three forbes journalists around his penthouse with allen weisselberg at his side.

during that tour donald trump again claimed the apartment was 30,000 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. now, again, we do not know for certain this is the alleged lie weisselberg is in negotiations to plead guilty to perjury for, but, man, it certainly seems likely. "the new york times" gives us one clue as to what is behind these plea negotiations. "the times" reports the thing that sets these negotiations in motion were renewed threats 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. last year mr. weisselberg spent

100 days in a rikers island jail for his role in helping engineer a tax scheme for the trump family business. not only did he plead guilty but part of his plea deal made him testify in a civil trial that same year for the trump organization. what does it mean here for donald trump? as "the new york times" puts it tonight, although the potential agreement is unlikely to immediately affect mr. trump, it could strengthen mr. bragg's hand before the former president's trial. it could deter other witnesses in mr. trump's circle from lying on the stand. and perjury charges could discredit mr. weisselberg who has disputed details of mr. bragg's 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. and tonight just hours ago we got even more breaking news that

makes that all the more important. tonight jack smith's federal election interference case just dropped off the d.c. court's calender. now now, that case had been originally scheduled for march 4th. but now due to delays caused by trump's presidential immunity appeal it looks like that date is off the books, very much tbd, so that is huge news for manhattan district attorney alvin bragg. bragg had previously made clear he would defer to scheduling if there's a conflict, but with jack smith's case delayed until who knows when, that could clear d.a. bragg to take donald trump to trial as early as march 25th. what happens if one of the key defense witnesses in the first and maybe the only criminal trial donald trump is likely to face ends up behind bars? joining me now suzanne craig, "the new york times" investigative reporter focused

like a hawk on the taxes of donald trump, and voice vance professor at the university alabama school of law. thank you for being here tonight. sue, apart from the most trumpy perjury ever of course it comes back to donald trump's penthouse size. first -- first, i get -- if you could, help me understand allen weisselberg, who is so involved in this like, valuation of the trump penthouse, is on the phone to reporters, he's e-mailing them, he's really trying to say this thing is really worth a lot of money and then goes and stands under oath and says that was never my thing, i was never concerned about the valuation of that, it diminished his valuation portfolio. >> that's a hard one. maybe he had apnesia when he got

up that day. i want to say to start off with shout out to forbes and involved in that reporting able to bring it immediately to light and also to "the times" tonight for my colleagues for this great story. it was masterfully done with a lot of different pieces about allen weisselberg, who we have not talked about you and i seems like years, i think it's several months. but i think 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 valuation on it, that it didn't, and then that sort of went on the back burner, and all of a sudden this has popped up, you know, right ahead of this trial. and it definitely does look like they're trying to send a message to -- to other witnesses about the perils of lying on the

stand. but it's incredible what forbes was able to surface on allen weisselberg seemingly years-long campaign to have the value of that pept house put much higher than it should have been. >> sue big checks to alexander who was the reporter who dealt with mr. allen weisselberg, and correct me if i'm wrong, i believe was in the room when weisselberg was plainly lying on the stand. to me that suggests -- and this is after he's already served time at rikers -- a level of impunity on matters when it comes to the court. it just to me seems so brazen. it shouldn't be, i guess, should it? >> it is incredibly brazen particularly when you think

about defense prosecutors sensitivity to perjury. perjuriry is if you can prove it, you bring it because it's so central to truth telling in the criminal justice system. it's worth noting a couple of things, alex. first off, perjury charges are hard to make, and we can't really assess whether there's a strong case here without seeing the actual questions he was asked and his answers. there has to be a clear match with no lawful room in order for it to be purmgry. i think that's important, and this is reporting that claim negotiations are under way. we know how fragile thereat can be. anyone who lived through the hunter biden debacle understands until the judge accepts a plea in the courtroom there is no deal. >> can i follow up, joyce, and this is inked by any stretch and could absolutely fall apart. i'm sure the reporting in "the new york times" does not help the prosecutor's case here. if it does go through, though,

what are the implications for other witnesses in trump's orbit who are watching the treatment of allen weisselberg? >> it's exactly why prosecutors go after perjury with so much force. it really does send a message to other witnesses in a case. i've been involved in cases where we've prosecuted someone for perjury on the grand jury, and you see the other witnesses who are trying to decide just how much they could get away with take note. so in this case i think it's really important for one thing. it probably serves to keep allen weisselberg off the witness stand as a defense witness for donald trump. he has always defied the normal expectations with someone who completes a guilty plea as someone who will cooperate with prosecutors as part of that deal. he has never fully cooperated in any case, but keeping him off the stands and sending a caution to other witnesses would be important for alvin bragg at

this point. >> sue, deyou talk a bit about the role allen weisselberg has played thus far and what him not taking the stand in trump's defense and what the implications of that might be. >> he's been long present in donald trump's life and came from fred trump's operation, donald trump's dad. and knows i would say where everything is buried in the trump organization. he's incredibly familiar with the finances. and if people remember back to the criminal trial a few years ago now he was found guilty and went to rikers for -- for avoiding payroll tax. they were giving out perks to employees and he got some of them, and there was no tax paid on them. so that's sort of where we're at now. and we're headed now into a hush money payment trial. potentially we learned tonight it could go ahead march 25th. we still don't know, but alvin bragg's office has been preparing for that. and we're going to see now

whether or not -- you know, he's central to that. he was in the room. he saw it a lot of it. michael cohen has said he was in the middle of it, so, you know, i think there's just a lot of pressure on -- on weisselberg and a lot of focus on what he knew and potentially if he ends up on the witness stand, what he will say. "the times" is reporting they don't expect him to be on the witness stand. and i think part of what's going on here is trying to discredit him because 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 knock down evidence that could come up. >> joyce, sue points out it's been years since we've uttered the name allen weisselberg, and that's due in part there's a lot of trialing happening right now or potential trialing happening. as we have this news breaking forth tonight the march 4th election interference case, that date has disappeared from the

calender, man, it sure looks like that is not happening in march or maybe even april, the means, joyce, you know, the criminal trial most on track as far as, you know, 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. and, you know, the alvin bragg case which has often been discount as the least important of the four cases, it's such a big idea a former president has been indicted four times. so we have to talk about which case is more serious. this case, though, is about election interference. this is 2016 on the eve of the election. trump wants to make sure that voters don't hear a very damaging piece of information about his personal life, and so he engages in this complicated scheme now charged by the district attorney in manhattan to influence the outcome of the election.

this i think is a fitting first case to try the president on, and i expect it'll 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 block, but, sue, judge engoron has not issued his fine for donald trump, which tish james is asking to be $370 million. these are apples and oranges. this is a different case, but here's evidence potentially of the cfo of the trump organization potentially pleading guilty to inflating assets and then lying about it on the stand. if you're judge engoron and you're kind of just looking at this reporting, do you think that influences the way he thinks about potential fraudulent behavior at the trump organization? >> i think he's got an eye on it, but i think he's onto it. i mean he's already passed down -- this case was already decided on summary judgment, we really entered the courtroom just to decide what the damages are, so i think he's probably

probably watching it tonight, but i think his number and what it's going to come down to is going to be -- i think there was a courtroom full of evidence, and i think that's probably what he's weighing as he prepares that decision, which we're expecting could happen this week, next week, the week after. he said the end of january, the end of february, but i think theneck few weeks we're going to see it. >> a lot of waiting for a lot of big news. thank you for joining me tonight. joyce, please stick around because i want to get your reaction to new reporting, more breaking news about one of the other cases trump is facing, this one down in florida. it is about a locked closet and a secret room down at mar-a-lago that the fbi reportedly did not check when searching for trump's classified documents. that's coming up. plus, half the legal team that has beat donald trump twice will be here to discuss the single most important thing that resulted in his conviction. that is next. conviction that is next to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today.

there's ketchal dripping down the wall and there's a shattered porcelain plate on the floor. the president was extremely angry and had thrown his lunch against the wall. >> that was cassidy hutchinson testifying to the january 6th committee about the time when president trump hurled his lunch at the wall. the wall in the white house. now, trump has denied that this ever happened, but since then we have only gotten more evidence that suggests mr. trump has a tendency towards tantrums when he does not get his way. today politico published an interview with roberta kaplan, one of the lawyers representing e. jean carroll in her defamation case against trump. in that interview ms. kaplan describes how mr. trump behaved in a deposition in a previous

case against him. she recalls it was about 11:30 in the morning and she says, sir, i have one more topic i want to cover but it is okay that i cover and we break for lunch. and you can see his brain working and he says, well, you're here at mar-a-lago, what do you think you're going to do for lunch? and i said, well, i've spoken to your lawyers about that issue and they graciously offered to provide us with lunch. at which point trump took the pile of exhibits, which was probably a good 2 feet high, and just threw it across the table. these angry outbursts are now almost commonplace in the courtrooms of trump's numerous trials despite the fact this is very unusual behavior generally speaking. trump's actions during e. jean carroll's defamation trial were so disruptive that the judge threatened to kick him out of court. judge kaplan, mr. trump, i hope i don't have to consider excluding you from the trial or

from your presence. you just can't control yourself in these circumstances apparently. by the end of that trial trump's tantrums were on full display even for the jury after he stood up and walked out of the room during closing arguments. in trump's new york state civil fraud trial judge arcter engoron has repeatedly admonished trump for theelz outbursts and 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. now, even with a lot of abnormal behavior is now pretty normal stuff at this point, pretty normal trump stuff at this point, the angry freak outs seem to provide a window into trump's psyche, how donald trump sees himself. right now we're awaiting a ruling in the d.c. appeals court over trump's claim he should have absolute immunity over

anything he said as president. and it's more than a legal defense. it would seem to be an explicit statement how trump thinks about his relationship to the rule of law, namely that he's not bound by it, he can do and say and throw whatever he wants even ketchup. and while this has become sort of central to his legal defense, it is also a huge liability in a court of law. as e. jean carroll's lawyer, roberta kaplan, told politico this is someone who can't and won't follow the rulesch so one would think when you're in a courtroom with a jury acting like a bully and not following the courtroom rules as instructed by a 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's own behavior. it's this concept that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to him. someone who has experienced

trump's courtroom tantrums first-hand, shawn crawly, cocounsel in the e. jean carroll case, joins me coming up next. l case, joins me coming up next.

that case is a ridiculous case. we're appealing it. it is -- she didn't know anything about it. she didn't know when it happened. there was nothing. people are looking at that case, it's a disgrace. we're appealing that case. we had a very hostile judge. we're appealing that case. it's a ridiculous case.

>> that was donald trump this week responding in the verdict in the e. jean carroll case where he was ordered to pay $83.3 million for defamation. joining me now is shawn crowley, one of the attorneys who represented e. jean carroll in her winning case. first of all, she didn't know anything about me, she didn't know when it happened, there is nothing. now, donald trump has not really mentioned e. jean carroll's name since the jury handed down the verdict. does that edge onto the line of defamation right there? >> he's definitely getting closer. but i think he obviously has someone advising him before he sends these posts and makes these statements, which i think is different from how he has behaved for the last four years and certainly in the lead-up and during trial. so we'll see what happens, but we are still counting this as a win. it's been a week now, and he hasn't defamed her, which i think is probably a record in this case. >> well, yeah, and it's such a testament to the sort of

self-indulgence with which he has conducted himself, his sense of impunity. i want to talk about what robbie kaplan brought up in politico in her interview. and i'm sure she represents you in it as well obviously since you're cocounsel. the outworst in the courtroom she contends that's the thing that secured the convictions, his inability to contain his rage. can you talk a little bit about that and how central it was in your sort of psychological strategy if nothing else? >> right, so i will tell you going into the trial we didn't know if it was going to happen or if he was going to show up, there was a previous trial in may last year on the issue of whether he sexually assaulted e. jean and whether he defamed her in another statement, and he didn't show up for that trial. and just a side note i think it's interesting he doesn't show up when the issue is whether he sexually assaulted someone, but when the issue is he has to pay someone he shows up. >> tells you about priority. >> exactly. we didn't know how he was going

to be when he was there, and our strategy as we're 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. you know, i think i said before lawyers and witnesses are used to sort of telling the jury about what happened in the past. there isn't, like -- >> a realtime example. >> and in this case there really was. it started with him muttering things and shaking his head and rolling his eyes, and it progressed to him actually storming angrily out of the courtroom a couple of times including during closings. so our whole point was this guy doesn't follow the rules and he was acting that out. >> robbie also mentions that the sort of the jury -- leading the jury in all this, they were a

hard jury to sort of read, and there was a hard moment at the end. how many men and how many women? >> there's seven men and two women. >> and there's one guy after they deliver the verdict makes eye contact with e. jean carroll and smiles, is that right? >> yeah. >> do you -- i mean given the fact they were hard to read, how much do you think just seeing trump storm out during closing arguments like effectively sealed the deal in terms of your argument? >> i think it definitely helped. like i never like to read juries, i think it just sort of jinxes and you don't know why someone makes a face they make. some jurors look at you, some don't. i don't want to read too much into that. i think the fact most of them remained pretty stoic throughout the whole trial even when there was these crazy antics really meant they were taking their role seriously, they were like we're not going to judge this until the end. there were a couple of points i

think there were a couple of laughs because things were so crazy. by and large they sat there and paid attention and taking notes and did not portray. >> an amazing job they did. were they encouraged to stay anonymous given history as a guide, robbie kaplan talks about the way -- we've been talking on the show the way in which trump seeks to intimidate everyone but especially judges and especially prosecutors. and robby who argued this case with you says she didn't pay that much attention to you, but you got up there in closing arguments and pointing at 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 prosecute trump or go after him in a civil trial, can you talk a little bit about the psychology of that and your ability to just point a finger at arguably one of the most menacing sort of public figures in american life? >> sure. robbie did the closing, and then

his lawyer, trump's lawyer, alina habba did her closing, and i got up to sort of rebut the arguments she made, which is usually a fun thing because you're not scripting, and robbi's approach was i'm going to tell it like it is, ignore the noise when he walks out of the courtroom. alina went and she brought up the temperature and was sort of shouting and making these points that we view it as not only wrong but pretty offensive. like e. jean asked for this, e. jean benefitted from the fact this guy sexually assaulted her and then defamed her. so i was feeling pretty fired up at that time. and, you know, i didn't really think about it as, like, i'm going to go up here and point at the former president. i thought this is just a guy who's done a lot of really bad things and who has behaved like a petulant 5-year-old for the last two weeks, and i want to

make sure the jury sees that. so that's 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 e. jean has said in a couple of interviews that she was very, very carified when she had learned that he was coming. she just didn't know what to expect, and then the moment she started testifying and saw how he was behaving it just became clear to her how he was in her words nothing. and that's kind of what happened. >> wow. you know, i think i'm going to defend journalism for chronicling trump's mendacity and threats because it's important since he's a prominent public figure but not buying into the fear he creates i think is one way of countering the poison harvest he seeks to sell, right? >> it's a lot easier to do that when there are not tv cameras and he's not at a rally where are shouting, supporting him.

lot easier in a court of law where a judge is keeping things under control and runs his courtroom like a tight ship. it's a lot easier to do tat. >> well, let's hope other praurs curators take note how you handle him and judge kaplan takes note how you handled him. congratulations on a very big deal not just for e. jean carroll but i think for a lot of women and people in american society generally. shawn, it's great to see you. i hope you get some rest, shawn crowley. we have more ahead tonight including whether the fbi may have left behind classified documents inside a locked closet in a hidden room during its search of mar-a-lago. we'll have more on that after the break. mar-a-lago we'll have more on that after the break.

ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000

or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

the virus that causes shingles is sleeping... in 99% of people over 50. and it could strike at any time. think you're not at risk? wake up.

because shingles could wake up in you. if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention. tonight abc news is reporting special counsel jack smith's team has questioned several witnesses in its classified documents case about a closet in a so-called hidden room that the fbi failed to check when it executed a search warrant at mar-a-lago. during this search the fbi seized more than 100 classified documents in trump's office and storage room. we know from jack smith's indictment of trump that many of those documents had previousby been kept in boxes lining the walls of the bathroom and spilled on the floor of a 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 long time mar-a-lago employee to change the lock on a closet door that the secret service had previously managed, and trump wanted the key. two months later when agents reached that closet during their search, they could not locate a key for it. they were told what stays behind the door it went nowhere. sources say in addition to the closet the fbi also failed today search a hidden room connected to trump's bedroom. back with us to discuss this new development is 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 warrant certainly covered them. the search warrant was very broad. it permitted agents to search any areas at mar-a-lago, any rooms that trump and his staff had access to and where these documents, the classified materials could have been stored. so that would have clearly covered both of these spaces. >> do you think it -- it reminded me of the fabulous "the washington post" reporting i believe it was december of 2022 that fbi field agents were initially reluctant to get involve would the mar-a-lago raid. it was tension between the executive branch of the fbi if you will and the field agents that would actually have to go into mar-a-lago. does this suggest to you maybe they sort of took trump at his word at face value in perhaps a way 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, and so frankly this one is a bit of a head scratcher because even if they had believed for instance that a locked closet was beyond the gambit of their search warrant, they could have simply hampered down and gone back to the judge for additional permission until they left the premise. that's not an unusual thing you do when you encounter a situation you hadn't fully anticipated, and you want to make sure the search doesn't go beyond what you're authorized to do because then you would lose your ability to lose that evidence, so sometimes prosecutors do go back to ask a judge for an additional warrant or an amended warrant, but that didn't happen here. >> yeah, given trump's reported interest in changing the lock, this is the day evan corcoran is basically doing clutter clearance in the storage room trying to find classified

documents. trump asked someone else to change the lock and give him had key on the secret closet and apparently doesn't pellagit to evan corcoran. given trump's own personal, again, alleged interest in this closet, you know, why wouldn't jack smith go back to get this? and do you think -- i mean at this stage of the game it seems like we're never going to find out what was in that? is that fairly accurate? >> so it's very interestingmism 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 they had recovered everything, but, you know, the government's primary objective here is to restore to the government all this classified material. so one has to believe if they had reason to think that there was classified material still located at mar-a-lago, that they

weren't able to obtain voluntarily, that they would have gone back with a warrant for more. >> joyce, can we talk about the sort of -- the mar-a-lago case going to trial and what your level of optimism is in terms of this going to a courtroom before november of this year? >> i haven't used the word optimism in the same sentence with the mar-a-lago case for a long time. i mean, this is a simple case as far as prosecutors view evidence and how much you have to do to get a case ready for trial. it should have already been at trial. the judge seems intent on slow walking it, but she's up against her own deadline to hold a section for a hearing on the classified information, and of course prosecutors have the ability if they don't like the rulings there to take an interlocutory appeal ahead of trial. i've always been of the view there would be a strong case here for the 11th circuit given the law in our circuit to

suggest she should step aside not because she has any clear bias but given her history with this defendant in these case and the earlier issue involving the search at mar-a-lago, public confidence is better served with another judge on the case. so, you know, 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 the sipa then perhaps there would be optimism if the case were to go to another judge. >> that's a lot of ifs. joyce vance, you are wise, wise, wise. thank you for your time tonight, my friend. >> thanks, alex. we have one more story for you tonight, where things stand as the u.s. prepares for retaliatory attacks in a drone strike in jordan that killed three u.s. service members. former cia director john brennen joins me after this break. joins me after this break.

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. you know, i don't think that the

adversaries are of a one and done mind-set. so they have a capability, i have a lot more. >> tensions are high in the middle east tonight as the u.s. repairs to deliver retaliatory strikes for the recent drone attack in jordan that killed three american service members and wounded more than 40 others. at this moment it's still unclear exactly what will happen and where the u.s. has blamed an umbrella group of iranian backed militias, the islamic resistance in iraq for these attacks and has indicated any taction adbe enduring, not simply a one-time strike. joining me now is former cia director john brennen. director brennen, thank you for being here. i wonder what the sort of stipulation enduring not a one time strike suggests to you in terms of what the white house is thinking about. >> well, i think alex, as the iranian proxy groups in the region have demonstrated they continue to carry out attacks

against u.s. forces, u.s. interests, so i think the biden administration recognizes they're going have to keep a sustained effort against these groups to prevent them from carrying out these attacks. so i suspect we're getting closer to the kmepsment of these strikes. i suspect they're going to be directed against these groups that reside in syria, iraq, and yemen, and also they're going to be targeted against those elements they have participated in some of these attacks against the u.s. interests including members part of the iranian levlutionary guards that works closely with these groups. so i do think we're going to see something that's going to be sustained, it's going to be broader than what has happened to date, but i do think the focus is going to be on those groups in those three countries. >> you mention the kudz force. can you talk about the relationship between iran and the iranian backed militias and what the implications are in terms of deterrence, right?

they're operating in the kind of -- they share some of the same goals but there is a different value set peejsy between these groups and iran proper. can you talk about how the relationship works? >> you're right a lot of these groups are local groups whether you talkabout the houthis in yemen. they do have local agendas but the iranians support them because they're shia extremist groups, militia groups that are in league with 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, material support as well as expertise, allows them to build up these capables that they use against their local adversaries. but also now these groups have the wherewithal to carry out attacks against u.s. forces, against international shipping in other places.

iran does play a strong role here and i think the united states with the sustained strikes coming soon are going to be sending a clear signal to iran to cease and desist or the united states is going to continue to carry out these efforts to degrade their capabilities, but at this point i don't think we're going to go against iran proper inside iran. >> you mention the iranian revolutionary guard corp, and after the assassination of qassem solemani there was a lot of back channel to -- given the role these groups play for the slaughter of u.s. service members do you think there's a lot of back chenl here? i was surprised john kirby said there were not any communications with iran that he could speak to. >> i think they're not probably having direct communication with iran, but there are intermediaries that are used. the kudz force is the force

qassem solemani used before he was killed. the united states does work with various elements in the region. we'll have some contacts with those who are in direct contact with the force. i'm sure they're going to be sending signals both publicly and privately there's going to be more in store if they tone to go down this path of putting this pressure on u.s. forces in the region as well as international shipping and other targets. >> we were talking about it's very much the stick approach. it's also been floated there's been some reporting the biden administration is looking into recognizing the palestinian state. is that the carrot in all of this? do you think it has a deescalatory effect on all this the u.s. is trying to meaningfully change the direction in gaza?

>> i think they're going to put pressure on the united states. they're interested in maintaining their revolutionary credentials. i think it's important we're going to get ahead of any of this, the violence in the region to pursue a two-state solution. to make sure the palestinian people realize there is support for their aspirations for statehood. this is long and difficult road ahead, and i do know that the biden administration wants to keep that hope alive and pursue it, also keep hope there's going to be the 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 brennen, it is always so great to speak with you, sir. thanks for your time tonight. >> thanks, alex. that is our show for this evening. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. so we have a bill that decreases illegal immigration. we need to see what's in it, but