standing next to me. i absolutely loved it, so i thank them both for bringing us that special, special song to take us off the air tonight. and on that note, i wish you a very good night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thanks for staying up late with me. i'll see you again at the end of tomorrow. ♪ ♪ ♪ end of tomorrow. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ well, it is shaping up to be a really big week for the country, because this week, the supreme court is going to hear oral arguments on whether the 14th amendment disqualifies a donald trump from the ballot. and today, just a few hours

ago, actually, we got a pretty good window into how trump's legal team plans to make their arguments. and let me tell you, this brief, i read it today, it includes a fair number of arguments from an alternate universe. for starters, trump's lawyers claim that the former president is not in fact and officer of the united states, which is who the 14th amendment covers. now, this is not a new or surprising argument necessarily being made by the trump team. but let's be real. it kind of defies logic. i mean, how could it be that the president of the united states is not an officer of the united states with an obligation, by the way, to

abide by the constitution. it's kind of what the founders had in mind. but then, there's the other, perhaps even more startling piece, at least to me, of revisionist history that is included in this brief, that donald trump did not engage in an insurrection. in fact, according to the argument here, it was not an insurrection at all. the brief actually includes these claims. one, there was no insurrection. two, trump did not incite anything, and president trump did not engage in anything that constitutes insurrection. it even goes so far as to explain why the events of that day were not an instruction at all, including that it lasted only about three hours. what a weird argument that is!

and if of any carried firearms. okay, let's pause on that, because by that logic that they just outlined their, i guess if it were a robbery or a murder, it doesn't take a lot of time, only three hours let's say, and not that many people carried firearms, then it's not a crime. so this brief filed today in black and white really is also a reminder of how trump and his team to view the attack on our capitol and our democracy. that's what it reminded me of. but if you put those mind bending arguments aside for a moment, though we will certainly dig into them, i promise, with our first guest, what trump's case really boiled down to, as they laid it out, actually the very first page of

this brief right here, it's basically that voters should be able to decide. they say the people should choose our next president, not the courts, not elected officials, but voters. and of course, that's true. we all believe that. but it's awfully rich coming from the people who wrote this brief. i mean, remember, the reason we are here right now is because trump did not want to let the voters decide. trump and his supporters launched a coordinated pressure

campaign at the local, state, and federal level, we all remember, to overturn what the voters had decided. they created slates of fake electors, attempted to compromise and overtake that department of justice, and stood back as a mob descended on the u.s. capitol, all to undo the will of voters. and remember, the voters did decide on joe biden. so despite the arguments in this brief, they had a chance to let the voters decide, and they did the exact opposite. and they're only saying if given the chance, they will do it again. >> would you have certified the election results have you been

vice president? >> if i have been vice president, i would have told states like pennsylvania, georgia, and so many others that we needed to have multiple slates of electors. and i think this congress should have fought over it from there. >> you voted to certify the results of the 2024 election, no matter what they show. >> well, i voted not to certify the state of pennsylvania. >> what about 2024? >> we will see. if this is a legal and valid election -- >> so, even as trump's team is arguing, we should let the

voters decide, his top defenders, his potential picks for vice president, which i'm sure both of them are thinking, are on television saying they have no intention of doing so. they are expressing undemocratic views at the same time trump's lawyers are trying to claim the high ground. they're insisting in this brief file today that kicking him off the ballot would be undemocratic. but civil rights lawyer sherrilyn ifill said it's actually the opposite. in a brief she submitted to the supreme court ahead of thursdays argument she writes, quote, failure to apply the constitutional prerequisite for

the office of president trump would constitute an undemocratic exercise of power. applying the law equally to anyone, regardless of station, and despite popular opposition, is at the very essence of that rule of law, a fundamental pillar of democracy. to allow an individual who does not meet the constitutional prerequisites to run for office would send the message to the candidates popularity or the prominence of the office she seeks determines whether the law will be applied. could not have said it better, definitely not. joining me now is sherrilyn ifill, she's the former president and director of the naacp legal defense fund. she is now the vernon jordan

distinguished professor in civil rights at howard law school. so, sherrilyn, i'm not a lawyer, as you know. we've talked before, many times. but i did read your brief today, and it makes a really interesting point that you and i have talked about a few times before that's often missed about the origin of the 14th amendment, that it was meant in part to protect their voices and votes of african american voters. and many years later, what trump was trying to do was suppress those voices and vote. you make this point very clearly, which i think is very important in that brief. what did you make of the filing that the trump team, the brief that the trump team filed today? >> i made of it what you made of it, jen, and thanks for having me on. you know, these were regurgitated talking points,

i'm not really persuasive or was presented. you know, i think this is the only recourse, however, that trump's lawyers have, is to, you know, to say things that we know with our naked eye can't possibly be true, like the insurrection wasn't an insurrection. the reality is that section three of the 14th amendment is incredibly clear. the text of it is incredibly clear. the idea that the president is not an officer of the united states is ridiculous. the idea that the framers would have meant to exclude the president from section three is ridiculous. that means that the framers of the 14th amendment who were so deeply concerned about the insurrectionist spirit that

still existed in the south and inactive section 3 to ensure that those two have been defeated in the field, they said, would not be able to continue their rebellion in office. it would have been perfectly fine with jefferson davis running for president after the civil war. it is preposterous. and i think it's really important, and it's the reason i wrote the brief, to make sure that we surface the concerns that the framers of the 14th amendment had about the rights of black people to be full citizens, which is really the core of the 14th amendment, to ensure full citizenship for black people. and that trump's insurrection was a very particular kind of

insurrection. it was powered by his attacks on black voters, his attempt to discredit the votes cast by black voters, or at least who he thought were predominately likely to be black voters in detroit and philadelphia and atlanta. those are not random places that he picked. he picked those places for a very particular reason. >> that's very, very clear. it's such an important point that you raised in this brief. one of the other arguments that i did want to raise with you, people who are opponents of trump, it's that kicking him off the ballot would spark violence, empowers people and help him politically. you seem to make the argument,

as i read it, we can't pay attention to the impacts. we can't predict the impacts because applying the rule of law is so important here. why is it so important for people to understand that? >> that is just simply not a consideration that should be driving the supreme court anymore than the supreme court in 1954 should have decided that not to decide the brown case the way they did because they were concerned that white southerners would not accept it. it's actually not how the constitution works. you apply the constitution. you apply the law of the facts, and the court has to say what the law is. now, how that plays out in real life, that is the job of other

branches of government, and the job of local government, and the job of individuals. but once we have a supreme court that is fearful of the public, then we no longer have a rule of law. we actually have mob rule that is dressed up as though it is refined and, you know, being argued in the exalting halls of the supreme court. but for holding the court hostage to the likelihood of violence, we are in deeper trouble and i think many of us imagine. and of course, it's worth pointing out again, jen, that we've tried this already. that the voters actually voted in 2020, the majority of voters decided that they didn't want trump, and he refused to accept it, and he and his followers fomented an insurrection to try and overturn it. the idea that voters should just vote again, leave it to the democratic process, we did that. we tried that.

and what we got for it was a very myrna's mere mess, with violence, within that police officers, with injured police officers, and with an attack on our republic with members of congress running for their lives. so we've already seen that play, and we now know what the danger is. and as the framers of the 14th amendment say, to not be able to protect yourself, protect your own government against insurrectionists would be madness and folly, and it would be no best madness and falling in 2024 than it would have been in 1868. >> and as you also alluded to, excellent brief, and i encourage not lawyers to read it, i certainly couldn't understand, it is that they could do this again. this is what it's meant to protect us from, the 14th amendment. and we just saw and played a

clip from j. d. vance. we've seen what at least stefanik has said. this is why we have a judicial system. it's such a pleasure, always, speaking with, you sherrilyn ifill, thank you so much for joining me and taking the time tonight. >> thank you. so when jena griswold was elected secretary of state in colorado back in 2018, i seriously doubt she thought that one day she'd be walking into the supreme court to help mount an argument that a former president is an insurrectionist. and therefore should be able to hold office again. but this week, jena griswold is going to do exactly that. and in an order on friday, the court granted griswold ten minutes for an attorney representing her office to speak during oral arguments. jena griswold is in many ways at the center of this case, and she joins me right now. and so grateful you are making the time to chat with me this evening, because you are at the center of such an important moment in our history this week. i wanted to ask you, i mean, donald trump, as you said, is an oath breaking insurrectionist. and you point out that two courts have looked at that issue. it feels decided. the colorado district court and the colorado supreme court, of course. and the issue has not yet been litigated on the federal level, which i think something people have raised. and i'm in justinterested in your viewyou the on ton, jenyour show for the very first time. and with your introduction, i grew up in a cabin with a house

outside on -- so thini states constitution. rovision, it has toto be what dhapphere. you arprioand c ould have accepted donald trump's grip is on the republican party, and how mainstream maga extrnow imagint are of don e, and ahonjustchaos are yoyourn personal safety? i hdeatthworkeof state. iton the line. if a political partis trywith t democrprior host saibe intimbeintidonald trumpsa would be bedlchaos to the united states supreme court, depending on their decision, just reek grave threat his ou, your brave and coach. lot of lwayou had e as welme this evening. n thuthank yothink you has fall we've beeninto one authoritaria impulse of donald trump is real quick break. ♪♪uick break. my safetnce 20 whenhreat arted tol three of it ing file death t. we are sthe exe right use thto on worke andetaries te. it justi line. politicty is ng al or date, th party.they aangerouserican demo like yo prior and th that trumphad thty to to unitedsuprem cour dependitheir cision, st ree , thanu, your h. whating storyou haas well.thank. goon thurs >>nk you. an up, tucr n might be in nemore, k you probabed that. right rve aseal dicatot how fathe blican pas fal >>, we'vdeep dive been worn for e , intohoritari of donalump tho realllking ab allred is standing by. i've been looking forward to talk to him all day about the effort by house republicans to tank a bipartisan border deal. it doesn't get much crazier than this on the hill, and his bid to unseat ted cruz. we're back after a quick break. ♪

you can make money the hard way as a bullfighter 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. so there was actually some big news on capitol hill over the weekend, as senate leaders rolled out in the text of a 118 billion dollar bipartisan agreement, in an election year, to improve border security. now, make no mistake, this bill is a clear win for republicans. lots of democrats, a number of them at least, have spoken against it. i mean, just listen to the bill's top republican negotiator, senator james lankford, who calls it the most conservative immigration bill to get this far in decades. >> this bill focuses on getting us to zero illegal crossings a day. there is no amnesty. it increases a number of border patrol agents. it increases a file of officers. it increases detention beds so we can quickly detain and then deport individuals. it ends catch and release. it focuses on additional deportation flights out. it changes our asylum process

so that people get a fast asylum screening at a higher standard, and then get returned back to their home country. >> now, keep in mind, james lankford is a very conservative republican. and this bill is a compromise that president biden said he will sign. so, what could possibly go wrong? oh, right. >> there is zero chance i will support this horrible open borders betrayal of america. it's not gonna happen. i'd rather have no bill then a bad bill. a bad bill, you can't have, and this is what's happening in the house. >> once again, the problem is that trump doesn't really want to do anything to solve the situation at the border. it's not about the substance of the bill. he wants to use it as a political issue to run against joe biden in november, so he is pushing house republicans

successfully, by the way, to kill this deal, so that he can attack biden on the campaign trail as on the border. and top republicans in congress are of course all on board. house majority leader steve scalise swore the bill would not receive a bill in the house. republican conference chair elise stefanik called the deal an absolute nonstarter. and their boss, house speaker mike johnson called the border bill, quote, dead on arrival, after recently bragging about having a direct hotline on mar- a-lago. >> president trump is not wrong. he and i have been talking about this pretty frequently. i talked to him the night before the last about the same subject. >> that was two weeks ago. and what is johnson saying this week, you may want to know? >> is donald trump calling the shots here, mister speaker. >> of course not. he's not calling the shots. i am calling the shots for the house, it's our responsibility. >> it's not donald trump, okay

-- i guess it's just that house republicans, and now most senate republicans, we don't want to enact a republican brokered bill that addresses a top republican issue. if it doesn't make sense to, you're not alone. i mean, all that moment was missing was at the two maga favorite psyop, taylor swift. but the week is young. joining me now is congressman colin allred of texas. he's currently running in the democratic primary challenge sitting republican senator ted cruz. i have to admit, i'm kind of obsessed with this issue, and even trying to wrap my head around hypocrisy, this border bill fight for republicans. for the last week or so. but in a closed-door meeting tonight, mitch mcconnell reportedly told senators to vote no on the bill, so saying the problem isn't what james lankford negotiated, which she just outlined, but that the mood in the country has shifted. what is your reaction to that? i mean, do you think he just

means trump's mood? or what is your take. >> well, they usually don't come out and say it. listen, they're just gonna play politics. you know, for members of congress, for representatives, it's a two-year term and we have a year left in our. they're not gonna do anything for this whole year of their term in congress because donald trump has said that if you do anything productive, it will help joe biden in the reaction. this is the exact opposite of why folks like me get involved in public service. we're trying to actually solve problems and help communities. and we're actually bearing the brunt of the increased number of migrants coming across the border, record number in december. we do need to have a response to that. and to boil it down to politics the way ted cruz does, that we were seeing the speaker do,

it's such a disservice to the folks that you are supposedly representing. just don't run for office if that's what you want to do. >> people think you're going to washington to represent them. let's talk about the policy for a moment because as you said, you represent a district in a border state. you are running to be a senator from a border state. you've been critical of president biden on border security. you've sponsored your own legislation. you said you support the bill. there's definitely some democrats who have come out against it, as i've referenced. but i mean, for republican border hawks, what is their opposition about, if it's not politics? are there other things they're telling you? >> no, listen, and in this case, i think it is just the

politics. another point to the 5000 threshold in terms of shut down. but that is insincere in my opinion. this is really just about the politics. they've been saying since, you know, a year now in this term of congress, that they were going to try and, you know, do whatever they could to secure the border. there is a chance to do that. here's a chance to work with the president and with democrats like me who want to do this. and you are right, i have been critical in the past because i wanted us to move on something like this, you know, last year, which is not waiting to this

point, and we should be more aggressive in my opening to get ahead of this. because our asylum system has been broken. and we are seeing the results of that. and so this is something that will help us address it. but i don't think it's on the policy ground because we certainly are getting some of the things that i want, like protecting our dreamers, or the congress reform that i know we need because every employer in my district, in my state talks to me about our needs to better match our immigration system to meet the needs for our economy. this is not a comprehensive approach. this is just one segment of it,

and it's being led by, as you said, and apparently conservative senator in senator lankford. >> it's a compromise. it's imperfect. a number of democrats have spoken about how they don't like it. but it's addressing an issue a lot of people in the country have raised. let's talk about senator ted cruz, because you're running against him. he's kind of the type of person you would expect to hear from this, i mean, just last year, he was opposing his own border bill. now, he seems to be with house republicans who want to sink it for donald trump. so let me play something he recently said. >> so are you saying that there is no reason to have a border bill? >> we don't need a border bill. we have achieved the lowest rate of immigration in 45 years under donald trump. what was different, you had a president that wanted to secure

the border. this deal was negotiated with chuck schumer. chuck schumer doesn't want to secure the border. he looks at 9. 6 million illegal immigrants, and what he sees, its future democratic voters. >> i mean, it makes my brain hurt. but what are your thoughts? i mean, proposed the border bill, he's called that a crisis. what are your thoughts when you watch that? >> well, okay, they've been saying for so long that we have to have legislation to act more aggressively. well, here it is, ted. here it is. here's your chance to have the comprehensive reform that we all know we need, not kind of the, you know, three legged tool approach where we are trying to better match our immigration system to the economy, securing the border and provide a pathway to citizenship for folks who are being here. we're not talking about that here. we are just talking about the enforcement side. we're just also talking about dealing with what we are experiencing, which is the reality that our asylum system was not set up to handle the numbers that you are saying, and that we have a four, five, six, seven year wait for this asylum claim, and 90% of them are gonna be rejected. and so that's what we are trying to address. that's what we are here to do. and that's why we don't need ted cruz representing us in the u.s. senate anymore because texans these are a senator who cares about them, not just politics. helps me get the full benefits of magnesium.

qunol, the brand i trust.

♪oh what a good time we will have♪ ♪you... can make it happen...♪ ♪♪ try dietary supplements from voltaren

for healthy joints.

there was a point in time not that long ago when there was a basic principle in the republican party to consider vladimir putin a major threat to the united states. i mean, i remember so clearly watching my former boss, barack obama, debate mitt romney back in 2012, and romney saying basically exactly that. >> russia, i indicated, is a geopolitical foe. i'm not gonna wear rose colored glasses when it comes to russia or mr. putin. >> now, i'm sure i personally attacked mitt romney at the time. i probably did. and i don't typically agree with him on barack obama. but it feels to me he had a point there. putin's regime was a threat to our interests, and that threat has actually only grown worse since romney made those comments in 2012. remember, back in 2014, putin invaded ukraine and seized the crimean peninsula. and at that time, the republican line was to hammer president obama for not doing

enough in their view to deter and punish putin. at the time, republican congressman mike turner is that, quote, this is a precedent that is retracting the u.s. policy at a time when obviously russia sees an opportunity. senator lindsey graham urged president biden to, quote, suspend russian membership in the g8 and the g20 at least for a year and for every day they stay in crimea, and to the suspension. and senator ted cruz said that putin, quote, has nothing to fear from the united states, and that's why he is proceeding with impunity. that was all pretty tough on russia. but for good reason. they invaded a country and stole their land.

but beginning in 2016, that hard-line republican position towards russia began to kind of soften. there's of course the donald trump of it all, that was a big factor. republican presidential candidate, obviously, he had a very different view of vladimir putin than many in his party. we all know that and history tells us that. you may remember that the trump campaign actually changed the republican party platform on ukraine's defense in 2016. it went from calling on the u. s. to provide ukraine lethal defensive weapons, what those members have called for, to a very much more benign phrase, appropriate assistance. and once trump took office, he continued to openly praise and defend vladimir putin. there's a whole laundry list of things he said, a habit he hasn't been exactly able to break. but during trump's tenure, there was another very loud and influential right-wing voice that sided with putin over and

over and over again. >> why do i care what's going on in a conflict between ukraine and russia! like i'm serious. why shouldn't i root for russia, because i am -- >> if any people tell you why vladimir putin is so bad, why is he so bad? he's bad! >> i think we should be on the side of russia if we have to choose between russia and ukraine. >> we might be asking ourselves, this is getting pretty serious. what is this really about? why do i hate putin so much? has putin ever called me a racist? has he threatened me to get me fired for disagreeing with him? so why does permanent washington hate him so much? if you've been watching the news, you know that putin is having a border dispute with a nation called ukraine. >> border dispute, it's certainly one way to characterize a major military invasion. of course, carlson is just another far-right conspiracy peddler shown on the internet, no longer on fox. and he's apparently been spending the last few days in moscow for some reason, who knows? we don't know why. he has to stay relevant somehow, so i guess we will learn the coming days, maybe. but his position on putin and russia's invasion of ukraine, one that would have been antithetical to republican orthodoxy less than a decade ago, has apparently become now the majority view within the party, because republicans in congress have been delaying

additional aid to ukraine since october. today, house republicans rejected any possibility of voting for the senate bipartisan compromise bill that would have provided funding for ukraine, israel, and the u. s. border, a package that, by the way as a reminder, they themselves have demanded. and as national security adviser jake sullivan said back in december, a vote against funding for ukraine is a vote to help putin. >> do you think that any member of congress who votes against aid to ukraine is voting for putin? >> i believe that any member of congress who does not support funding for ukraine's voting for an outcome that will make it easier for putin to prevail. that is a vote against supporting ukraine's a vote to approve putin's strategic position. that is just an inescapable reality. >> that is just an inescapable reality. and unfortunately, it's the reality we are currently living in. ben rhodes was a deputy national security adviser for president obama. i can't wait to ask him about all of this. that's next after a very quick break. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

only sleep number smart beds let you each choose your individual firmness and comfort. your sleep number setting. and actively cools and warms up to 13 degrees on either side. save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus 0% interest for 36 months on select smart beds. ends monday. only at sleep number.

so when president obama was in the white house, i worked side by side with then national security adviser ben rhodes. we worked together in 2012, when we argued vehemently against romney's warnings about russia to some degree. in 2014 when russia invaded ukraine, and in 2016 when russia intervened in our election. suffice it to say he's thought a lot about the influence of russia, vladimir putin, and of course, the evolution in some surprising ways, to be honest, of the republican party's cozy

relationship with the kremlin. my friend, ben rhodes, joins me now. hi, ben. i want to dig into ukraine because you know this issue so well. but i just have to start and ask you this question over the weekend, but here you are, what do you make of tucker carlson being in moscow? >> first of all, those pictures -- i look pretty tired, jen. >> we both do, it's okay. >> [laughter] yeah, i think it would be easy but wrong to dismiss this as trolling. the reality is that there is an ideological affinity it should be taken seriously. you know, vladimir putin is trying to present himself as the vanguard of representing some kind of retrograde christian values. he's targeted immigrants. he's targeted lgbt communities

in russia. he's demagogued all opponents. he's attacked cancel culture. he's kind of positioned himself as a pretty familiar figure on the american right, a strong man who will vanquish your enemies on your behalf. and that is essentially the message that he has refined in ways that, i think, we hear echoed not just by donald trump, but increasing corners of the republican party. and tucker carlson represents a kind of ideological id of the republican party, that person who's unafraid to look at vladimir putin and say, you know what? i like that. it's a strong man who doesn't like all the same people i don't like. and he's willing to do whatever it takes to oppose his will. and i think that really is the stakes, not just in our politics, but in the world today. >> it really is a reflection to me at least, as we are thinking about this today, also the evolution as i just outlined. i mean, you and i remember very well back in 2012 and 2014, i mean, there was a number of leading republicans who are attacking the obama white house for not being tough enough on

russia, remember? and now, it's kind of taken a very different direction, obviously, with the delay of funding to ukraine. what do you make of that evolution? is it all trump related, or is there more to it? >> no, i think trump is a part of it. but, again, i think it speaks to this shift in the republican party. look, under the kind of ronald reagan version of the republican party, which is not a party that i agreed with on a lot of stuff, but essentially, they had, as part of their core identity, hostility to russia, the soviet union and then russia, as a geopolitical opponent to the united states, as an autocracy, whereas we were a democracy. and those things used to matter more to that republican party than beating democrats or playing some identity politics in this country. as the republican party has shifted, not just to be about trump's interests, but to be about a kind of brand of identity politics where they are out to get certain people, and they have an us versus them politics, again, certain groups in this country. and they have, frankly, an affinity for strongman and autocratic approaches to politics that discard democratic norms. vladimir putin is the avatar of all of that. he's the guy that got elected

and then used the powers of the presidency of russia to dismantle democracy in a lot of the same ways that viktor orban, another friend of tucker carlson's, has done in hungary. and i think donald trump would like to do that in this country. so, it shows how their ideology has shifted from one of embracing free markets and democracy and capitalism under ronald reagan, to really embracing this kind of ugly brand of us versus them identity politics, and autocratic brand of politics that we see today. vladimir putin is kind of what tucker carlson sees in the mirror, or wants to see in the mirror, and a lot of republicans are lining up with him. >> aspiring autocrats, aspiring dictator, strongmen. let me ask you before i let you go, it's so important for people to understand, the actual impact of holding up this ukraine funding.

i mean, you have sat in the situation room when the impacts were being discussed. you know how desperately the ukrainians need this. what are we hearing about practically here, the fact that they're not getting the money right now? >> well, we're talking about life and death for the ukrainians. we're talking about them losing the war to russia already because of delays in this funding. they are firing less shells on the front line into russia. america is a lifeline to ukraine. it is under attack. what tucker carlson calls a border dispute is the same thing as saying that adolf hitler had a border dispute with poland, you know, at the onset of world war ii. and if this funding is cut off,

i don't know how ukraine can hold that frontline. and all the sacrifices that they have made on behalf of their sovereignty and democracy will fall victim to american political dysfunction. think of how tragic that would be. after all the sacrifices, all that deaths that ukrainians have laid on the line, and frankly, the united states putting a lot of assistance in, but not putting our own troops in, to give them a lot, because the house representative is afraid of breaking with donald trump. i mean, that would be a tragedy of historic proportions. and i think it's probably not getting enough attention. this is real. this isn't a game in washington. this is about whether or not ukraine can defend itself. and i think we all have an obligation to stand with people that are frankly just fighting for their own survival in ukraine. >> it is such an important reminder of how desperately they need it, how much there fight is aligned with our values, and how not that long ago, it would have been a partisan play at all. ben rhodes, always love talking to you. thank you so much for joining me this evening. and coming up, i'm gonna tell you about one great example of donald trump's authoritarian impulses that no one is talking about. i've been looking forward to talk about this one, and the former president just gave us a big opening to do it. we're back after a quick break.

♪ ♪ ♪

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 here's the thing about donald trump that is pretty obvious to me i know i bet, when things are going badly, he will explain everyone and everything else but himself. but here is an example. when the economy wasn't performing as well as the heat wanted it to trim his presidency, he often blamed the federal reserve and its chairman jay powell. now with economic indicators showing things are finally looking up under president biden, trump was once again resorting back to blaming the fed, and of course attacking powell. >> i think he is willing to do something to help the democrats, you, know if you lowest interest rates. it looks to me like his trying to lower interest rates for the sake of maybe getting people elected. >> so you think he is -- >> i think he is pulling the cards. >> that is what trump said just a few days, ago literally the last couple days. during his time in office, he repeatedly attacked the fed for not doing his bidding, and

tried to pressure chairman paul to lower rates, and make him more popular, no matter the long term consequences. >> i think the fed is out of control, i think what they are doing is wrong. i think the fed is far too stringent and they are making a mistake. it is not right. >> we have a gentleman that likes raising interest rates in the fed. we have a gentleman that loves quantitative tightening in the fed. we have a gentleman that likes a very strong dollar in the fed. >> i think the -- making a mistake. i think the fed has got -- >> i'm not happy with the, fed because i think they are -- we have some tremendous opportunities right now, but chairman paul does not make it easy. i have a right to -- >> i mean, that sort of thing as you saw, was basically a

daily occurrence when trump was in office. he was obsessed with powell. he tweeted relentlessly about the, fed and openly abused about -- someone by the way he appointed. that is what is supposed to be an independent agency is an independent agency, it straight out of the authoritarian playbook. turkey's authoritarian -- between 2019 and 2021, for not lowering interest rates, even appointing this very unqualified son-in-law as the minister of finance. sounds familiar? it should. those erratic actions led to spoiling inflation, and a deep crisis in turkey. just to give you a sense of how bad things actually got there, when inflation rose to more than 80% in august 2022, erdogan simply kept pressuring essential bank to lower rates. that contributed to losing more than 80% of its value over the past five years. of course, the cost of everything as a result, food,

fuel, medicine, just so expensive for the turkish people that it would just simply could not keep up. the crisis got 30, erdogan finally came around to the fact that interest rates had to rise, but the damage was already done to their economy. and this is a common trait amongst aspiring strongman. ignore your own expert, signal to council, ignore the recommendations, and attack the independence of institutions when they don't go along with their ideas about how something is as intricate as the economy works. hungary's president and -- appeared frequently in stumps, reaches has attacked his central bank for hiking interest rates as well. argentina's newly elected leader also committed to burning down his country's central bank before backing off that idea. so i think you have probably noticed there is a running theme here, authoritarians or aspiring authoritarians cannot stand independent institutions. that is exactly why any president has to appoint the

right people, with the right qualifications. in the case of the fed, the president must sue someone who's willing to act independently despite politics. so the next time trump bragged about the economy, and uses that his pitch to return to the white house, it is important to remember he could very well take a wrecking ball to the fed, much like other authoritarian staff around the world. the american people will be the ones left holding the bag. that does it for me tonight. the rachel maddow show starts right now. hi, rachel. >> hey, jen. that was stunning. thank you very much. i'm really glad that you are on. it is good to see. you >> get to see you as well. >> thanks to a home for joining us this hour. happy to have you, here happy monday. so in september, you might remember there was a big strike, united auto workers went on strike, they call it a standup strike which means they didn't strike every single factory and facility all at once, they strategically picked

individual plans to strike and pick in. it was so they could basically keep up the pressure on the companies but also be nimble about it while the negotiations were going on. a strike is about leverage you can use against the company's. this was a strategy about fine- tuning their leverage so they did a standup strike. not, that it was not a small thing. it was a huge strike. it was the first time ever that the uaw went on strike against all three major u.s. car companies at once. but, they did it. and, in the and, it paid off hugely. the strike ultimately lasted about a month and a half. it lasted 46 days. it worked. they got record contracts for their workers. their workers. the strike was so effective the contracts they got were so goodw even car companies without union workers gave their employees raises and gave their employees better conditions to try to keei up, to prevent their emp