in washington, congress still hasn't approved more funding for ukraine, and to influence his own voters ahead of his election in march. russian media is already celebrating the interview, the headline with the state news agency tass, putinen is trending on x. keir simmons, nbc news. >> that's going to do it for me. "deadline: white house" starts right now. hi, it is 4:00 in washington, d.c. i'm alicia menendez in for nicolle wallace. by any measure it's been a wild ride of a week particularly if you are disgraced twice impeached ex-president facing 91 criminal charges because here's the thing about 91 criminal charges, just by virtue of the sheer volume of charges with a legal mess that vast, you are at all times dealing with and in

trump's case probably doing battle with multiple federal judges and multiple counts. this week alone was the d.c. circuit cut put his screams of presidential immunity temporarily on ice reminding him for the purposes of this criminal case, former president donald trump has become citizen trump, with all the defenses of any other criminal defendant. there were the nine supreme court justices who regardless of how they ultimately rule on the 14th amendment case sure sounded like they were not enjoying getting drawn into the nonstop cyclone of chaos that is donald j. trump. those keeping score at home, it is t-minus 72 hours till trump's legal team must file their appeal to the supreme court in the presidential immunity case, an appeal that must somehow convince those nine supreme court justices to agree to hear yet another trump case. that's just the cases we spent all week talking about. we also saw the judge, trump's

civil fraud trial, judge engoran days away from ruling on the financial fate of the trump organization fire off a scathing letter to trump's legal team over whether questions about whether trump organization cfo allen weisselberg perjured himself. judge kaplan rejected trump's motion for a mistrial in the e. jean carroll case and ordered him to pay her $83 million. special counsel jack smith fired a big warning flare at judge cannon and, of course, it is all eyes on that monday deadline in the presidential immunity case, the series of decisions that will determine when trump's federal election interference case goes back to judge tanya chutkan and gets going. if you thought this week was highly charged, buckle up. and that is where we start with msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin, plus, president of the national action network and host of

"politics nation" on msnbc, reverend al sharpton and with me at the table, former assistant attorney general and former u.s. attorney harry litman. let's talk about the d.c. court giving the trump team until monday to file their appeal to the supreme court, that is this monday. trump said he'll file an appeal worth remembering. what the possible scenarios are, could this be back in judge chutkan's hands? >> it could be but i want to correct something briefly. what trump has to file monday isn't actually his petition for review or an appeal by the supreme court, it's really a request to stay the d.c. circuit from sending the case back to judge chutkan while he further appeals, and their response to that stay request will tell you everything you need to know and this is why. it's the difference between four votes and five. in order to get a stay from the

supreme court you got to have five votes, however, an order for the supreme court to review a case, you only need four, so five people on the supreme court are going to have to vote in favor of staying this immunity case, or rather staying the case while trump furtherers his appeal in order to prevent it from getting sent back to judge chutkan. to answer your question, how soon could we know? we could know as soon as sometime next week. on the other hand, the supreme court has no calendar to obey but the one of its own making and can sit on the stay request ordering briefing on the petition for certiaori. the judge floated the nightmare scenario that the supreme court in ordering briefing and

scheduling oral argument takes so much of its time that the case can't even be heard before the end of this supreme court term is interred over the summer. for example, as the nixon case was and instead bleeds over until the next supreme court term which harry knows well starts the first monday in october. there is a situation where there are no rules about timing, so we are going to have to watch very closely that supreme court docket for bread crumbs on how this will go. >> speaking of bread crumbs, harry, given that you were in the room yesterday, you watched as the nine justices lobbed questions at these attorneys, what did you read into their sort of appetite? is there anything to read into their appetite for taking up this immunity case? >> for the immunity case, okay, so, i think the answer is maybe. this is a really down the middle call. will they grant a stay an they'll get the motion for it on

monday and take cert. they would do it blindingly quickly for them. >> i guess what i'm saying, did you sense sort of a fatigue, an annoyance about the fact that this is what they're having to grapple with, that this is the case before them and if you did, because i think there were some court watchers who felt that way, does that give you a sense of their own appetite to reckon with immunity? >> gotcha. that's a great point. i didn't. in fact, i think chief justice roberts is pretty tired of all the criticism that the supreme court has been receiving -- on the receiving end of and these were two cases, both the immunity case and i think the colorado case where they could kind of rule for democracy, not have the same kind of polarized divisions they're having in all the cases that it will continue to engender controversy. i thought in a sense the court overall was rising to the occasion kind of proudly to have a near unanimous disposition of

these very big democracy-driven cases. >> rev, harry just talked about sort of the opinions of the court. it's impossible to talk about these cases without talking about two big things, the ethical scandals that engulfed justice thomas and other justices and this court's record low approval hovering around 40% since they overturned roe versus wade in september 2021. your sense of how that factors into this moment as they wade through these cases involving the former president. >> well, i feel that a lot of what we are going to see how they operate is based on the perception now of many americans that they have operated as a court or at least the justices sitting on the court that some of them have operated in a compromising way. there's been many of us that said that judge clarence thomas should recuse himself,

particularly from the case connected to january 6th because it is a matter that his wife was involved in the january 6th situation that was an insurrection, but i think the weight of what is being decided here, we're talking about whether or not the supreme court is going to uphold the elements of the 14th amendment, which was put there after there was an insurrection with the confederates against the union. we're also talking about whether we're going from a democracy to an autocracy when you have a president saying i should be given full immunity for anything i did as president. so the fundamentals of what this country stands for weighs in the balance as we look at these cases. >> lisa, let's talk about the new york civil fraud trial. judge engoran fired off a terse letter to trump's team over the question of whether trump's cfo

alan weisselberg perjured himself. when i sent my straightforward narrow request for information about possible perjury by allen weisselberg, i was not seeking to initiate a wide-ranging debate with counsel, however, your misleading response grossly mischaracterizes the letter i wrote and felt compelled to respond and said, you and your co-counsel have been questioning my impartiality since the ermently days of this case presumably because i sometimes rule against your clients. that whole approach, lisa, it would seem to be getting old. what is going on here? >> i think judge engoran was frustrated with the lack of candor or the lack of information, i shouldn't say candor because we don't know what the trump lawyers in the civil case actually learned. however based on their own due diligence and the facts irrespective they've had with weisselberg, they likely know whether allen weisselberg did,

in fact, perjure himself during his testimony, and they are obligated to report whatever they know about that to the extent that there were falsehoods told on the stand to the judge in keeping with their ethical obligations under new york rules governing attorneys, i should note alina habba and cliff -- the attorneys who it was written to, are new york licenseds lawyers, they have that responsibility. and engoran is frustrated neither one of them gave him any information and on top of that as you noted, they took the opportunity to make some attacks on engoran saying he's perpetually been biased against them, that he doesn't take issue for example, with the fact that michael cohen who was a witness for the attorney general also perjured himself on the stand, he doesn't seem to be having a problem with that and yet is attacking poor allen weisselberg. i want to note for you and our

viewers, alina habba represents weisselberg in this case as his civil lawyer, and her letter to judge engoran which he did not directly call out really begs the question of what she knows. i'll read to you from it. we do not represent him, meaning mr. weisselberg, in connection with any criminal matters, i have not spoken with the new york district attorney's office about any of the matters discussed in "the new york times" article. that's the article that disclosed that mr. weisselberg is allegedly in plea negotiations with that office. she continues, in an abundance of caution i have conferred with my ethics counsel and advised i'm restrained with my obligations from providing any further detail. what's not in there, of course, is any denial that allen weisselberg, in fact, might have perjured himself during his testimony. no matter, judge engoran says it won't affecting the timing of his ruling but puts those folks on notice, if anybody perjured themself in my courtroom, i want to know about it. and i likely think this is not

the end of that inquiry, irrespective of when we get his decision. >> so, given that the possibility that weisselberg perjured himself doesn't necessarily change the time line of the case, does it change, harry, anything else about this case? >> look, the options for trump about the decision that is going to come out maybe by next wednesday what he said are either huge or gargantuan. >> what is the space between huge and gargantuan? >> 120 million. they asked for 250, then for 370 million. i think he will probably not go all the way to what they've asked. this is now there's an eye toward appeal. but it can't help, you know, the weisselberg perjury looks to have been something to the side tangential to the case but still when he's loading up on everything that's happened, it could be just another pea on top of the large pile. >> to that point, rev, about the

pea on top of the large pile, this case involving the trump organization in the civil fraud case, it really gets under donald trump's skin. i just wonder what you are expecting from the former president when this ruling by judge engoran comes out and if potentially the trump organization can no longer do business in new york. >> i think that you will see a complete meltdown of donald trump, and i say that with some difficulty because we've already seen somebody that we think melted down but i think you'll see the ultimate meltdown, because this is his brand. this is who donald trump tried to be all his life, this super successful megabusinessman. that's how he got "the apprentice" on television and that's where his celebrity came from entering politics using birtherism and racism to go all the way to the white house. when you grab that away from him, a building can't stand without a foundation.

his mental foundation was his being this great entrepreneur that he was a winner and that he was this great guy. if he ends up anywhere near 120, $130 million given by this judge on top of the 83 million, you're getting close to a quarter of a billion dollars to come up. if he can't do business in new york, you will see him totally, totally unravel and you will very likely see the wildest of wild campaigns, because he's liable to do anything. he will be completely unhinged because he will not be anchored in anything if they take away everything from him. that's what it looks like he's facing? >> if you use that as the center of piece of what could begin that unraveling it reminds us there are also all these additional pressure point, the one-two punch in the e. jean carroll case and you had judge lewis kaplan rejecting his

motion for a mistrial and yesterday judge kaplan formerly ordered donald trump to pay her $83 million in compensatory and punitive damages for defaming her. this is being described as having started the clock in terms of when donald trump has to pony up money. explain to me how that works. >> so, alicia, after the jury renders a verdict in a civil case like the e. jean carroll case, in order for appellate deadlines to start running for post-trial motions to run and the time in which the litigant has to post a bond, if they owe money to their adversary in the case, all of those things are determined by what's called the entry of the judgment, and that's separate prosecutor the jury's verdict. until yesterday judge kaplan had not entered the judgment. that's likely because he was taking some time to write the opinion denying the mistrial that you noted earlier, so that it can become part and parcel of

what gets appealed by donald trump, who is presumed to be taking an appeal from that $83.3 million judgment. but now that the judgment has been entered, donald trump now has 30 days to post a bond. that can come in one of two ways, either he posts the judgment himself and puts it essentially in an escrow account with the court with some interest for e. jean carroll to get if she prevails upon appeal or alternatively he can find a company akin to an insurer to do that for him and he would make a down payment to that company of 10% to 20% and also give them some real collateral, a building, perhaps, maybe something else, but, again, this is where donald trump's legal fortunes all converging are to his disadvantage, because under a preliminary injunction order in that new york attorney general's civil fraud case, he can't transfer assets to other people without a certain number

of days' notice to judge engoran and to the independent monitor in that case. he cannot move around his properties like monopoly pieces anymore. he doesn't have that freedom. so how he then deals with this 30-day deadline to post the bond in the e. jean carroll case will be very interesting and the first e. jean carroll case he didn't find a company to do that for him. in fact, he posted $5.6 million, that was the verdict in that case, plus some additional amounts for interest by himself. >> monopoly has rules, lisa rubin. >> even in my house. >> you can't move the pieces around. i want to just zoom out and talk about this big picture. you have monday's deadline, right? you have the fact that this ruling from engoran could drop any moment. we think it could come next week. you have the fact that jack smith is dialing up the heat on the mar-a-lago case. you can almost sense the walls beginning to close in and it's

not, you know, we used to talk go this calendar and it was sort of far in the future. there are weeks and days ahead. we are now really in it and if it feels that way for us as people who are watching, it must feel that way to the person who is at the center of the storm. >> you got to think so. these are the two foundations of his empire, right, both staying out of jail, and as the rev was saying, up to $250 million and what that means to post a bond then which he'll have to do and potentially not being able to participate in the real estate business. even for donald trump, even as the weeks have been, this is another week in legal hell that's coming, and the supreme court motion for a stay and immunity, except if he's able to wrangle it for a delay, that's going to go against him on the merits, and that's just really calamitous for the whole criminal side of the equation. he's getting a one-two punch like none other in this next week. >> harry litman, thank you so

much. lisa rubin, as always, thank you. in the next hour, the rev is going to stick with us. when we come back, vice president kamala harris leading the corps husband of democrats today who are calling the special counsel's report into president biden's handling of classified documents gratuitous, inappropriate and inaccurate. we'll talk to one of those democrats about it next. plus, republicans in washington this week sending a strong signal that global democracy all but abandoning the fight to protect ukraine this being led by not only leaders on capitol hill but right-wing propagandists. later, the criminal investigation into classified documents. special counsel investigating donald trump turning up the heat and imploring the judge that all witnesses must be protected. you're watching that case and more when "deadline: white house" continues after this. af. crohn's disease. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are looking up, i've got symptom relief. ♪ ♪ control of my crohn's means everything to me. ♪

♪ control is everything to me. ♪ feel significant symptom relief at 4 weeks with skyrizi, including less abdominal pain and fewer bowel movements. skyrizi is the first il-23 inhibitor that can deliver remission and visibly improve damage of the intestinal lining. and the majority of people experienced long-lasting remission at one year. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. ♪ now's the time to ask your gastroenterologist how you can take control of your crohn's with skyrizi. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ (vo) welcome to lobsterfest. is your party ready? ready to tango with tails ♪ on tails on tails? try lobster lover's dream with two lobster tails and lobster & shrimp linguini it's one of ten next-level lobster creations red lobster. is your party ready? i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e.

life, diabetes, there's no slowing down. each day is a unique blend of people to see and things to do. that's why you choose glucerna to help manage blood sugar response. uniquely designed with carbsteady. glucerna. bring on the day. to advance the future of golf, pga of america chose t-mobile for business. with a 5g powered innovation hub to analyze player performance and expand coaching tools. take your business further with america's largest 5g network.

the way that the president's demeanor in that report was characterized could not be more wrong on the facts, and clearly politically motivated. gratuitious. we should expect that there would be a higher level of integrity than what we saw. >> that was vice president kamala harris joining a growing number of democrats and calling out special counsel robert hur for being out of balance with what they call excessive, inappropriate and false material that has no business being in his report about president joe biden's handling of classified documents. in a fiery remark, biden slammed hur's claims about his memory

about events that happened 40 years ago which he was asked about while dealing with hamas' attack on israel that had happened just the day before. today, biden's white house counsel called out the, quote, gratuitous and inappropriate criticisms of the president in the report. and politico reports officials inside the white house say hur, quote, far exceeded his purview in this assignment in which he ultimately concluded to not recommend criminal charges. let's bring in democratic congressman dan goldman of new york, member of the house oversight committee. rev is also here. first your thoughts specifically on the conclusion of this report? >> i thought even the conclusion was out of bounds. to say that he willfully retained classified information is not supported by the evidence that he recites, especially when you're talking about notes that he kept that may have included some classified information and may not have, which would have been his property while

certainly while he was in the vice presidency, but ultimately, even the special counsel, although i thought that was an overreach realized that president biden cooperated fully because he had no intent of concealing or possessing classified material, and he juxtaposed that, i thought, very specifically and very correctly with donald trump, who went to great lengths to conceal and possess classified material, even obstructing justice and obstructing the fbi, and the disparity is really vital and i think it goes not only to the actual fact pattern in the two cases but to who these two men are. president biden believes in the rule of law. he believes in our criminal justice system. donald trump believes he's above the law, and he does not believe in our democracy and our system of government, and that's the choice that the american voters will have in november. >> congressman, i want to talk about with we spoke about with

andrew weissmann which was as he described its the adjectives and adverbs that had no place. claims he couldn't remember when his son beau died. watch. >> how in the hell dare he raise that. when i was asked the question, i thought to myself it wasn't any of their damn business. i don't need anyone. i don't need anyone to remind me when he passed away. for any extraneous commentary they don't know what they're talking about. it has no place in this report. >> the additional details by the special counsel which you have heard being called gratuitous is it him putting the thumb on the scale? >> absolutely, absolutely, this is a republican special counsel who knew he would take flack from his own party because of their misguided view of the two different cases and investigations between president

biden and president trump, and he tried to insulate himself by taking political pot shots at president biden to put his thumb on the scale in an election year. it's completely inappropriate and let me point to something else that has not gotten a lot of attention that i think goes to a little bit of what i'm saying, even just on the second page of the executive summary, the special counsel starts editorializing about why president biden wrote his memoirs and that he thought he was presidential material and that he wrote his memoirs to bolster his presidential timber. that is not language of a prosecutor and i was one for ten years. that is subjective, guessing, assumptions, and certainly not something that should be included and that's on page 2 of a 380 plus page document. so this already from the get-go was clearly slanted, clearly overly subjective and clearly

inappropriate for a prosecutor to write. >> congressman, switching gears, you recently introduced a resolution to censure elise stefanik for her support of january 6th insurrectionists conduct that you call unbecoming of a member of congress. your reaction to her saying just last night that she would not have certified election votes on january 6th and this dangerous litmus test for trump's next running mate. >> it is -- it's sad. honestly it's just sad at this point to see the dissension of elise stefanik, who entered congress as a rational moderate republican and who has now been -- gone through some sort of maga conversion therapy where she not only is equating january 6th insurrectionists who have been charged or convicted with criminally as hostages equating them to the 130 plus hostages

from israel who -- and including americans who are in the tunnels in gaza, but she's now saying that she would have overturned a lawful election if she were the vice president in mike pence's shoes. that is scary. that is anti-democratic. that is a sycophant willing to do whatever donald trump who has made it clear that he wants to be a dictator says he's going to do, and that poses a serious danger to our system of government and our nation writ large. >> rev, i wanted to have you on with us because i want to know what you thought about that was in the report. >> well, i thought that when i read what hur said, hur being a 21st century or this 24, i should say, 2024 version of james comey is clearly trying to effect an election, impact an election, because you have to ask yourself, why would he even

be questioning joe biden about when did his son die? if somebody is coming and questioning me, thank god none of my two children are dead, but why would they ask me when my mother died? do i remember the date, so to even ask it is suspect. then to put it in a report that has nothing to do with that and then to go through other things, it's clearly a political report. the good news, though, is it's done in february, not right before an election and i think that the american people are smarter than they think they are, and i don't think it helps their cause, the republicans and the trumpsters when you have stefanik saying, by the way, i would have overthrown an election which is in my opinion tantopinion tantamount to an insurrection. i thank stefanik for taking the

veil off what they were trying to hide, and that is they want an autocracy and she says i would have done it and if he puts me in vice president and happens to win, i will not certify the election that we don't agree with. >> to your point, there's no subtext anymore and it's all text now. congressman dan goelman, thank you so much. reverend al sharpton, thank you, sir. do not miss "politicians nation." congressman al green will be one of rev's guests with the decisive vote on the impeachment of homeland secretary. up next, russian president vladimir putin using tucker carlson and elon musk to spread dangerous propaganda about the war in ukraine as congressional aid hangs in the balance. that story up next. a cowboy or a gangster. and a gangster's outta style. i got back to my roots...

we come from a long line of cowboys. my grandfather, my great-grandfather, my aunt even rode horses. when i see all of us out here on this ranch, i see how far our legacy can go. (♪♪)

when you smell the amazing scent of gain flings... time stops. (♪♪) and you realize you're in love... steve? with a laundry detergent. (♪♪) gain flings. seriously good scent. the first time you connected your godaddy website and your store was also the first time you realized... well, we can do anything. cheesecake cookies? the chookie! manage all your sales from one place with a partner that always puts you first. (we did it) start today at godaddy.com this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading.

katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. growing up, my parents wanted me to become a doctor or an engineer. those are good careers! but i chose a different path. first, as mayor and then in the legislature. i enshrined abortion rights in our california constitution. in the face of trump, i strengthened hate crime laws and lowered the costs for the middle class. now i'm running to bring the fight to congress. you were always stubborn. and on that note, i'm evan low, and i approve this message.

the willingness of the right to embolden vladimir putin was on full display this week. we had on the one hand one of the biggest stars in right-wing media, tucker carlson, using his platform to sit down for a two-hour interview with the russian president and broadcast his propaganda unchecked. on the other with real consequences of democracy republicans sank a bill that would have provided critical aid to ukraine. the aid was part of a broader border security and foreign aid package. the senate voted yesterday to proceed with a stripped down bill that would still provide further assistance to ukraine, but it is unclear whether there

is a path forward on it. but the message this week was crystal clear, republicans have no urgency to support what is necessary for global democracy. joining us now miles taylor, former chief of staff of the department of homeland security and co-founder of the future u.s. which is focused on election security and frank figluizzi is here. miles, i just wonder what you make really big picture of republicans, their willingness to abandon ukraine here. >> alicia, there's no other way to look at this than this is a hangover from the trump presidency that we still have and as a conservative it's confounding to me because years and years ago you never would have expected the republican party that was anti-russia, anti-putin, you know, strong on national defense to turn and become his supplicants but this is the reason why it happened is one man's affections for

vladimir putin, donald trump, has now become our national affliction and we saw that with the russians supporting donald trump in 2016. he feeling like he needed to reward them for that during his presidency. i remember when trump first went and engaged with putin, him calling john kelly afterwards and saying, you know, we're going to form an impendable cybersecurity unit with the russians and we were just dumbfounded. this was a foreign enemy who had just interfered in our election and breached our cybernetworks and now the president was saying we're going to team up with them on cybersecurity. kelly and the rest of the team, we were dumbfounded, but, you know, a lot of us had naively hoped donald trump's affection for putin and willingness to sacrifice u.s. security was a personal defect. instead, that's been implanted onto the wider republican party and republican leaders and what we just saw with the tucker

carlson interview shows that they're now brainwashing the masses that somehow russia is our friend and i think it's deeply dangerous for u.s. national security. >> well, frank, just to add some context there, this is how peter baker laid out putin's position this week in "the new york times." quote, the idea was to isolate putin, to make him a pariah, to put him in a box as punishment for brazen violations of international you la. they kicked him out of their world leaders clubhouse and cut off his country's economy and issued an arrest warrant against him for war crimes but vladimir putin does not look all that isolated these days. mr. putin with envy who invaded neighboring ukraine without provocation killing or injuring hundreds of thousands is having something of a moment in the united states. i mean, frank, that is chilling. >> well, indeed, the so-called interview last night was chilling with tucker carlson. there's a large portion of our

society that has lost its compass. it's lost its compass with regard to defending and championing the rights of three people like people in ukraine to exist without being invaded and killed. what we saw last night was vladimir putin rambling on for over two hours virtually uninterrupted on a soapbox that he found and, boy, he was right when he selected tucker carlson to so-call interview him the first time he's been interviewed by an american in about three years, so we have to ask ourselves, alicia, two questions, why carlson and why now? the why now, you just went into, the u.s. senate is debating whether to defend democracy in ukraine or not. he knows that. tucker carlson knows that. so the timing is perfect. the why tucker question is even easier, which really is about knowing and doing your homework as a former kgb officer that

putin is, knowing when the outcome is going to be what you desire, which is to have somebody who fawns over you leave you to speak for over two hour about nonsense. >> miles, i am just so struck by the stakes here, right? we had advisers to the president in briefings saying, if this funding does not get delivered to ukraine, it is very likely that ukraine loses this war in just a matter of weeks. the time line here is incredibly precarious. talk me through the stakes for ukraine itself, miles, but also this global fight for democracy over autocracy. if you have congressional republicans just absconding, where does that leave that fight? >> this is existential for ukraine. there is no question about it. the future of that country, the security of those people are

absolutely on the line. that is what's on the line. it's real human lives in a western democracy that wants to be a part of a league of democratic nations. their lives are on the line because of this. the bigger picture here, of course, is the question about whether the united states will continue to put its thumb on the scales to make sure the balance of power in the world favors freedom, favors free and open society, favors countries that don't monitor their citizens and jail dissidents and it's extraordinary to me that that is now in doubt, and i think frank is absolutely right, putin has chosen this moment very strategically and this exceeds his wildest dreams about where he thought his intervention in 2016 could go. not even putin could have predicted he would radicalize trump to his cause, but the entire republican party to do his bidding and it's a really

perilous moment for the united states, and it's stunning to see issues like this become politically polarized where it's the democratic party now that is just the bulwark between the united states and submitting to autocratic countries and allowing them to expand their authority, but i think that's what we should not lose sight of right now back to what you asked, alicia, this is ukrainian lives on the line. these are real human beings that are fighting for the future of their country and that's up in the air. >> frank, as you wrote, tucker carlson just gave vladimir putin exactly what he wanted. i would argue congressional republicans did the same. if you are our allies, frank, what are you thinking right now about the behavior you see coming from republicans in washington, d.c.? >> yeah, they have to be doing a cost benefit analysis if they're in nato looking at further defense of ukraine, they've got to say, is it worth it to put our money in this ukraine basket

if, indeed, the biggest player we have is going to pull out? that's the problem here. and on a larger scale, you should also be looking at china, not an ally but saying, hey, maybe we do have a shot at taiwan, because it seems like about half of america is uninterested in defending free people. >> the ripple effects go on and on. well, no one is going anywhere but the general election coming up, states are working overtime to keep poll workers safe from training on how to use a tourniquet to active shooter drills. this, a new normal of today's political environment. more coming right up.

at typical insurance, you're just another senior. that's the third health insurance commercial with seniors at a farmers market. right? don't get me wrong i love a fresh heirloom, but it's like those companies think we're all the same. that's why i chose humana. before i signed up, i spoke to someone who actually listened to what i needed. she told me about benefits that were right for me, like vision and dental... all in my budget. i finally feel in control. what are you doing? taking control. humana. a more human way to healthcare.

♪(song in french)♪ (♪♪) book in the hotels.com app to find your perfect somewhere. las vegas grand prix choose t-mobile for business for 5g solutions. because t-mobile is helping power operations and experiences for hundreds of thousands of fans with reliable 5g connectivity. now's the time to accelerate your business.

♪ with reliable 5g connectivity. ♪ ♪

we are just under seven months from election day 2024 and across the nation election officials are scrambling to prepare poll workers for an unprecedented level of threats thanks to the continued onslaught of lies about the last election and those are already casting doubts about this one. just take a look at how the job description for election officials has changed. from "the washington post," in training poll workers for this year's presidential election, arizona secretary of state adrian fontes is preparing them for a series of worst case scenarios including combat age his office is coordinating active shooter drills for workers and sent kits to county election offices with tourniquets to stem bleeding, geisss to barricade doors and hammers to break glass windows. back with miles and frank.

is this the new normal for elections in the united states. >> you know, i can't help but notice the connection between our last segment talking about how it appears many americans have lost their appetite for defending democracy and now we're talking about the home front. now we're talking about domestic security and the fact that maybe americans have lost their appetite for democracy at home as well, because the number of threats against election workers, many as you know are simply volunteer, elderly people trying to do their civic duty now teed to take their lives in their hands because they're going to try to help their citizens vote, so a couple of suggestions here. first, the federal government is not moving fast enough and more powerfully enough to handle the existing caseload of threats. i can't say that often enough. this is an emergency. it's a crisis, we've got an election coming. there's only months to do what's right and they need to push aside some of their caseload and get people in handcuffs who have

made actionable criminal threats against election workers. two, dhs better prepare and equip with intel and other resources local and county police officials so they can get into the precincts, identify the threats and the threat actors and provide the security needed to get their elections done safely. >> seven months, miles, given all of this, not really a surprise that we have fewer people who want to do this job. you have some 11% of current election officials said that they are very or somewhat likely to leave their post. i have heard from all the secretaries of state just how difficult it is to recruit folks at this point. here's what i think we sometimes miss. just how important it is, right, to have experienced poll workers ordinarily but specifically, miles, in 2024 and just how detrimental it is that you have so many folks who are leaving and saying, the risk isn't worth the reward. >> well, the turnover is problematic just from an

administration standpoint as you want people who have the experience so that voting goes off flawlessly so that people don't think something unusual happened or it's difficult to make allegations that the polls were mismanaged, so from a very simple standpoint of having confidence in the democratic process you want people with the experience, but, alicia, as you know, people are thinking about leaving because they're worried about their safety. another poll showed roughly one in three poll workers were actively worried about their safety on election day. that was last year. i suspect the numbers are higher now. i was just speaking at a conference of election officials, and i had at a conference of election officials and i had someone from pennsylvania come up to me and say we're worried about our safety, being harassed, physical threats on voting day. that's the type of quote you would have expected to see in the "washington post" in an eastern european country or a country where there was turmoil overseas. not in the united states, people worrying about their safety

administering votes. i will say frank is right. more action needs to happen. we've got to redouble our efforts. there are some bright signs. just today jenn easterly, who runs the agency at dhs that oversees cybersecurity announced they're deploying more people. but i'm not sure they're going to even then be able to keep up with the volume of threats. it's extraordinary what we're seeing, it's unprecedented, and we have to respond in a way that is extraordinary and unprecedented. >> frank, i'm really glad that myles landed there, because here is the thing that anyone who has done voter engagement and turnout work knows, which is talking about voter suppression of any kind, talking about complications to voting, it can sometimes have the unintended effect of actually suppressing the vote itself, that people worry is it worth it. we've been talking about poll workers. is it worth it for me as a voter to show up.

what do you see as the bright spots, what do you see as the reason that people need to keep coming out, even as we run through these risks and these threats? >> yeah, look, the last presidential election, the bright spot there is the dam held, with regard to cyber. let me assure you, last election there was a battle royale behind the scenes, in the black world of the dark web, nsa, cisa, all the three and four letter agencies doing battle with foreign adversaries to ensure that there was no cyber meddling in the vote tallying of the election. that is good news. we need to message that to get people more confident in turning out. >> myles, frank, thank you both so much for spending time with us. next, what the government is doing to put a stop to some of those political robocalls that may not be what they seem.

ved h. that's great. i know, i've bee telling everyone. baby: liberty. oh! baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪

(tony hawk) skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ i take qunol turmeric because it helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. why qunol? it has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric. qunol. the brand i trust. ♪♪ whoo!

♪♪ light work! ♪♪ next victims. ♪♪ you ready for this? ♪pump up the jam pump it up♪ some good news, the fcc is move to go fight disinformation this election cycle by banning robocalls that contain voices generated by artificial intelligence in a unanimous decision yesterday. this comes amid growing concerns after ai robocalls mimicked president joe biden's voice to discourage people from voting in new hampshire's primary just last month. the new hampshire attorney general's office announced this

week they were investigating two texas-based companies in connection to the calls. this new rule will empower the fcc to hand out steep fines of up to $23,000 per call, block the service providers that carry those calls, and opens the door for consumer lawsuits. the chair of the fcc saying this is, quote, putting the fraudsters on notice. up next, the mar-a-lago documents case, what the special counsel is asking of the judge. much more news straight ahead. a cowboy or a gangster. and a gangster's outta style. i got back to my roots... we come from a long line of cowboys. my grandfather, my great-grandfather, my aunt even rode horses. when i see all of us out here on this ranch, i see how far our legacy can go. (♪♪) a mystery! jessie loves playing detective.

but the real mystery was her irritated skin. so, we switched to tide pods free & gentle. it cleans better, and doesn't leave behind irritating residues. and it's gentle on her skin. tide free & gentle is epa safer choice certified. it's got to be tide.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california.

steve garvey, the leading republican, is too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. in my administration i'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. no one will be above the law. >> we also need the best protection of classified information. >> we can't have someone in the oval office who doesn't

understand the meaning of the word "confidential". >> it is 5:00 here in washington, d.c. i'm in for nicolle wallace. despite those calls before he came president, we know donald trump did not abide by his own words. he took extremely sensitive government documents to mar-a-lago after he left office and has been criminally charged for doing so. the investigation having to do with the proper handling of secrets, special counsel jack smith is now stressing to judge cannon the importance of keeping witness names a secret, warning that not doing so would leave them vulnerable to, quote, significant and immediate risks. in a filing yesterday, smith wrote if certain details are not redacted, it would disclose the identities of numerous potential witnesses, along with the substance of statements they made to the fbi or grand jury,

exposing them to immediate risk of threats, intimidation and harassment, as has already happened to witnesses, law enforcement agencies, judicial officers and department of justice employees, whose identities have been disclosed in cases which defendant trump is involved. this is on top of a brief smith filed just the day before, which described how a government witness has been threatened over social media and they're subject to a federal investigation. he asked the judge to keep an exhibit which describes those threats under seal and even keep trump's legal team from viewing it. trump's legal exposure in this classified documents case, he was charged with 40 criminal counts, standing in stark contrast to the current president, who as we know as of yesterday, will not face charges stemming from the investigation into his handling of classified material. special counsel robert hur's report included this distinction, quote, after being given multiple chances to return

classified documents and avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. in contrast, mr. biden turned in classified documents to the national archives and the department of justice, consented to the search of multiple locations, including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview and in other ways cooperated with the investigation. that is where we start this hour with political correspondent, plus former congressman from florida, and back with me at the table, former deputy assistant attorney general and former u.s. attorney, harry litman. this request of the judge, how unusual is it? >> it's a motion for reconsideration, and that is very unusual. but it underscores the stakes. she is in a box of her own making because she accepted

trump's submission and said that in order to keep this information sealed, which smith says will really endanger witnesses, you have to have the highest legal showing. in fact, you don't. it's completely down here and the 11th circuit has said so. that's the circuit above her. remember, we have this ongoing drama with her. she's been slow-walking the case and she had these early sort of debackles that the 11th circuit reversed. we've been wondering will she make another clear misstep that will give smith the wherewithal to say maybe it's time to recuse her. she either has to back off because she's blatantly wrong, and on a motion for reconsideration, i think she probably will, or she's looking at the strongest possibility in the last year of a motion to recuse her. >> it was striking to me that there's even this ask from smith to not allow trump's own legal team to see some of these

elements. again, that seems highly unusual. >> well, there's certain discovery that is protected, but it's not unusual when you have a showing and that's what he made just two days ago, as you were saying. people are being intimidated. judge cannon, you yourself are fielding death threats. this is what we have to do to protect witnesses and not intimidate and provide for a fair trial. unusual, sure. but par for the course for trump. >> it speaks to the reality we find ourselves in, anyone involved in something that goes after trump, the receiver of violent threats. am i wrong in finding it alarming this might not be complete obvious to cannon? >> no, this should set off alarm bells. look, i think the legal terms, witness intimidation, witness protection, we talk about filings. the reality is this is thuggery, what jack smith is concerned about is thuggery on behalf of donald trump, his team and the

people around him. they are thugs that engage in this witness intimidation to try to stop adverse testimony to the former president's interests. in some cases, it could be people, several degrees of orbit around donald trump that maybe he's aware engaging in this. the real concern is culturally it very well could be people that donald trump has no idea who they are. but he has unleashed this cultural movement and has given permission to violence and intimidation, and we are seeing the results of it. the manifestation of that was january 6th itself. we're willing to engage in violence to intimidate mike pence to not certify the election. that is a dangerous moment. it is a timestamp of where our politics now rests today, where our culture rests. but also the one person that could cool the temperature and de-escalate this is actually donald trump himself. he never, ever does that. he activates it. >> betsy, i will concede that when there are sections and

details that are redacted, i become more interested in what those sections and details are. in this latest filing from smith, he lists some of the documents that he thinks should remain sealed or should remain redacted, and i think it's very interesting and gives you a sense of what it is he's talking about. a list of all the fbi agents who searched trump's mar-a-lago estate, an excerpt from a witness' grand jury testimony that reveals non public details about mar-a-lago's layout, including where trump's son baron's bedroom is, and interviews of former close advisers to defendant trump. i see that list and it seems obvious to me why details like that should be protected. it also, though, reveals the level of detail that could be in here. i wonder what your reporting is telling you about just how wide and just how deep this investigation has gone. >> the document shows that what congressman jolly referred to as

thuggery is already in jack smith's view having a harmful impact on his ability to move forward with his investigation, in those portions that you just cited there's a description of a witness interview where the witness refused to let investigators record the interview because this person worried that it would hurt their standing or their relationships in trump world if a recording ended up being made. so that culture of punishment is something that actually concretely impacted jack smith's team's ability to gather information, and without a doubt the specter of threats of violence hangs over every person who is linked to this, including, of course, to your point, civil servants, career government officials, people who are not independently wealthy, people who have had low profile problems for their entire careers who would face life-altering threats of violence.

that's the description that jack smith gives of it, if their names become public. fbi agents in particular are extremely sensitive about their names becoming public in relation to investigations because threats against them can come from any number of avenues, and because their careers in the bureau are often so long running. for their names to get out is something that the fbi is always extremely concerned about, and the fact that trump's lawyers are trying to make the names of so many fbi personnel public is something that jack smith seems to find deeply upsetting at sort of a gut level. >> let's talk about things that are happening in parallel here and behind ourselves what else special counsel jack smith is dealing with, in the other case he's prosecuting against trump, the election interference case. the judge had to impose a gag order. jack smith doesn't have the luxury of focussing on the case because he has to simultaneously fight to keep people safe from

attacks, i just wonder to what extent that makes the actual legal case that much more difficult. >> i'm so glad you went there. i think the real scary part is what this foretells for the january 6th case itself and particularly for potentially star witnesses like mark meadows. what happens when we start to see the cassidy hutchinson's of the january 6th case that jack smith is prosecuting in washington? what we're seeing in the documents case of intimidation by the president or what we've seen in the past when he tweets out names of either witnesses or attorneys or prosecutors. imagine in the january 6th case when his own jeopardy is really on the line and we start to see very high-profile witnesses that the entire country is hanging on their every word. we're seeing the intimidation in the documents case and it will look like small ball, i'm afraid, to what we're going to see on the january 6th case.

sure, jack smith and the judge have to worry about protecting those witnesses. but the amount of bravery it will take, like that we saw with cassidy hutchinson, is going to take with mark meadows. i think what betsy hit on the very important, life-altering, lifelong. i use the case of mark meadows. whoever the dispositive witness is, the rest of their life will be changed after that. >> given those stakes, harry, but for the individuals and for democracy itself, this specific case is set to go to trial in may. judge cannon has extended deadlines and set a march scheduling hearing. when do you think this goes to trial? >> if she's not recused, 2025. even the may date now, it's already effectively been extended three months. she just hasn't pulled the trigger on the actual order. she in general has avoided doing anything that could get her reversed. that's what's pretty dramatic about this one.

and, by the way, remember, it's maybe the strongest of the cases. it's cut and dried. it really should be straightforward. if she is recused, there's no reason it couldn't go to trial say in the summer. but i think right now most people have given up hope that as long as she stays presiding -- >> talk to me about that. because as you were tweeting about coming on, this was everyone's big question, the question of recusal. >> so the 11th circuit, it's a high standard but she got out of the box with two debacles, right after the search warrant was served she appoints a special master. completely up river, not what you ever do. the 11th circuit is pretty conservative and struck her down in a very hard-hitting way. you could consider that kind of two strikes. if there's something so blatant, and all of her rulings, benign or not, have gone in the direction of more delay. if she does something so

blatantly off as she has done in this order, and it goes up to the 11th circuit, this may be the time that jack smith, the dod doesn't like to do this, moves for recusal, and maybe the time it happens. that's why i think, even though it will leave her with egg on her face, she is going to walk this back. >> when you say something that would cross the line, give me an example. >> blatant disregard of the 11th circuit precedence. the circuit says good cause is enough and she takes trump's argument with no basis and says, no, you have to make a show compelling circumstances narrowly tailored. that's a very elementary error. >> betsy, the reason we're talking about all of this, the politics of it, the legality of it, is because, as you well know, trump wants to delay this, in part because he sees winning the presidency as sort of his way out of criminal charges. how does smith turning up the heat as we have watched in the past few days complicate that political strategy from donald

trump and his team? >> it's a good question. anything, of course, that results in this -- in these proceedings moving faster is a problem for trump. and of course the huge wild card for his advisers is what would happen to his opinion among the electorate at large if he were to be convicted of a crime. all the polling indicates that it would be a real political problem for him. that is not a risk that his team wants to tangle with. obviously they don't want that to happen. i think part of the reason they're engaging in this unusually aggressive strategy is that, of course, it results in these protracted motions, it results in these more time-consuming legal fights, the longer this takes for trump the better it is. but at the same time, of course, judges and doj officials have to weigh what they believe to be bad faith motives with the sack

rights of those in the court system. regardless of how sympathetic or unsympathetic the defendants are. these have to be impeccably handled because the scrutiny is so intense. >> we, of course, are talking about the classified documents case as it relates to donald trump, near 24 hours after robert hur's report comes out about president biden's classified documents case, the decision not to move forward. the question of intentionality, how much did that really play in to the decision not to proceed? >> it is the question, and a frightening question. as a former prosecutor, i've got to tell you i found it repugnant. the stray kind of accusations -- they almost dovetail with talking points from a political campaign that biden is old and doesn't remember well. nothing to do with the case. nothing to do with the decision not to bring it.

a really farfetched attempt even to cram it in. it not only doesn't belong there, but it really does seem to be an absolute shot in the arm for trump politically. it's really troubling, i think. >> here is the thing. putting aside as andrew weissmann called it the adjectives and adverbs and gratuitous elements in the report, we knew that republicans were going to try to make this apples to apples, they've always tried to make it apples to apples. i would argue it's apples to kittens that becomes additionally clear if you actually read the 300 plus pages of this report. and yet the fact that they decided not to move forward with charges for president biden, you're going to have some republicans out there screaming their head off about the fact that it shows that there is not a parallelism in justice. i wonder politically speaking as a strategy, if you were democrats, how you message against that inevitable attack. >> yeah, i take a very tact in

the direction the white house has taken in the last 24 hours, and my tact is to let it go. let it go. no charges were brought under the report. that's all you have to say. no charges were brought. the president cooperated with the special prosecutor, he cooperated when he identified the documents that needed to be returned. no charges were brought. let's talk about the economy, let's talk about my leadership on the world stage. and the reason i say that is because the contrast in the cases will continue to work against donald trump. donald trump engaged in obstruction, donald trump engaged in malfeasance, donald trump will face accountability for that. joe biden does not have to worry about this report or his defense to draw that contrast. on the question of age, what i would say is this, don't take that bait either. just take the hit and move on. this race if you're joe biden is about ideology, not age. it's about your leadership on the economy, for education, access to health care, your

attempts to solve the border wall when republicans obstructed and didn't do it. your ability to govern when republicans can't. this is about competency and this is about ideology. if you want to touch the age issue, flip the script on critics and say, show me one time my age has compromised my ability to lead the nation, because you can't. they're cheap shots. don't engage in cheap shots. don't push back. just take the hit and move on and make this race about competency and ideology. because, look, on competency, donald trump didn't tell the world to inject bleach in their vooens because he's old, he did it because he's an idiot. age has not limited joe biden. think about it. sure, he looks old. but has it limited his presidency, has it limited his ability to lead? absolutely not. ask any critic or evidence of that. >> thank you for spending some

time with us. the republican party's capitulation to donald trump. why do politicians do whatever the disgraced ex-president says? a journalist who has the answer to that question after a short break. plus, with american aid to ukraine up in the air, what will happen to ukraine and its battle for survival against vladimir putin's russian invaders? we will ask someone who has been our eyes and ears on the ground in ukraine since the start of the invasion. and later, what does it say about our politics that donald trump can be indicted four times and only get stronger? well, joe biden is exonerated, yet seems to have suffered politically. how democrats can turn that around. deadline white house continues after a quick break. [dramaticll] introducing, ned's plaque psoriasis. he thinks his flaky red patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. ned? otezla can help you get clearer skin,

and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing otezla for nearly a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts, or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. with clearer skin, movie night, is a groovy night. ♪♪ live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla.

awkward question... is there going to be anything... -left over? -yeah. oh, absolutely. (inner monologue) my kids don't know what they want. you know who knows what she wants? me! with empower, we get all of our financial questions answered. so you don't have to worry. empower. what's next.

the overwhelming majority of his life it was just an act. donald trump's domineering tough guy routine, it was a shtick he perpetrated to inflate his reputation as a strong armed businessman. then the republican party cast him as its idol and the fantasy turned into reality. trump's grip over the gop in washington isn't new. but this week more than any other in recent memory proved that it is tighter than ever. he inspired self-sabotage and bipartisan congressional border negotiations, effectively got the rnc chair to resign because he wanted changes. and his picks for vice president are now practically tripping over themselves, cause playing what they would have done for trump on january 6th. that is the subject of a new piece in the atlantic. in the business world, the entertainment world, he didn't

think trump was able to intimidate people as much as he does now. quote, just remember that there would be a lot of stuff that didn't go his way, but he has all these senators in the fetal position. they do whatever he wants. joining our conversation, staff writer for "the atlantic," whose bye line is on that piece. let me make sure i'm getting this right. donald trump always wanted to have this influence in the business world. he created this whole persona. it did not have the same impact that it has had in the political world. my question is, why? what happened? what changed? >> that's what i was fascinated to think about as i was writing this piece. you know, i think it helps to understand where the republican party was circa the summer of 2015 when donald trump entered his first presidential campaign. by 2015 the republican party had been through years of wh

infighting and an increasingly wide gap between the base of the party and the political class. you remember in 2010, 2012, 2014, you had all of these establishment republicans who had conservative records, they thought they were doing all the right things, and they were getting toppled in primaries by these kind of tea party upstarts. and it became clear that a lot of elected republicans had no idea what their voters wanted and they were scared of their base. then you have donald trump come on the scene and he starts immediately acting like an old school party boss. he's this guy who is telling people what to do, he's saying if you cross me, i'll end your career. but if you're nice to me, i'll keep you in the party, in the good graces. and i think for a lot of republicans in congress and elected republicans across the country, it was kind of almost felt like a relief. they suddenly saw that the formula for re-election was

really simple, do whatever donald trump says. it doesn't matter if his orders are incoherent, it doesn't matter if they're reckless, as long as i look like i'm obeying donald trump, the voters won't punish me, i'll be able to keep winning primaries. i think that's why you continue to see events play out like this week. >> what's amazing to me is the fact that they don't seem to have caught on to this yet, so on trump's options for vice president, you started the week with j.d. vance, how he would have gone about january 6th differently than mike pence, and now you have elise stefanik. take a listen. >> i would not have done what mike pence did. i don't think that was the right approach. i specifically stand by what i said on the house floor, and i stand by my statement, which was there was unconstitutional overreach. there was unconstitutional overreach in states like pennsylvania and i think it's important that we strand up for

the construction and have legal and secure elections which we did not have in 2020. tens of millions of americans agree with me. >> i'm old enough to remember on january 6th when elise stefanik condemned what happened. she now seems to be locked in a reality contest for america's next top vice presidential pick. it's so sad because there are people who are listening to her and there are people who are believing her whitewashing of history. >> yeah, an absurd and disgusting sell-out moment from elise stefanik and it should offend the constitutional convictions of most americans. and the worst part is she knows it. i am most taken by elise's evolution on this and the grandeur with which she has done it. when donald trump came in and crushed the orthodoxy of the

party and demanded loyalty, you had all the republicans fall in line. the outlier was lindsey graham, the person who did a face plant, made a fool of himself, humiliated himself to stick himself right up to donald trump. she has set way past lindsey graham and reset the barometer for what it means to completely abandon your convictions and show loyalty to donald trump for your own personal political interest. as tough moment to watch elise stefanik do that, but she did it and owns it. the broader question i wrestle with, we are now eight to nine years in to the rise of donald trump and his taking control of the party. if you are a never-trumper today in the republican party, why are you staying? who are you fooling? yourself or the american people? because there is not an internal tension any longer between donald trump and republicanism. donald trump is republicanism, republicanism is donald trump. if you are a never-trumper in

the republican party, it is time to leave. what are you waiting for? >> there is a detail in your reporting, mckay, that almost to me shows how maybe somehow this could have all been different. we've quoted former trump adviser earlier on the topic of pre-politics. here is come more. i loved this exchange. he pointed to trump's salary negotiations with nbc during his apprentice years. jeff zucker who ran the network at the time said trump once came to him demanding a raise. at the time trump was making $40,000 an episode but wanted to make as much as the entire cast of "friends" combined. zucker countered with $60,000. when trump balked, he said he would find someone else to host the show. the next day trump called to accept the $60,000. a spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

what struck me was that someone told him no. they told him no. they called his bluff. that is the piece we have not seen play out on the political side. >> it's such an important point. we're now so far into the trump era that we've all sort of accepted this reality that trump has all this power in the republican party and he can end whoever's career he wants, and of course they're going to do what he says. but, again, the republicans gave him this power. they handed it to him. another thing that i've heard him talk about is that in 2016 when trump first started running, actually in 2015, when trump made that comment about john mccain, you know, how he was a war hero only because he had been caught and insulted his war record, at the time that was an early test of trump's staying power, his ability to say whatever he wanted and continue

to stay atop the republican party. privately, trump was very concerned about that. he actually was fretting to sam nunberg and other advisers, saying, should i apologize, people are saying i went too far, should i apologize. his advisers told him, no, stick it out and republicans will fall back in line and they did. what if republicans had not fallen back in line and said this is disgusting, you need to apologize or leave this primary and drop out? my bet is that trump would have done it, he would have done what they said. the strength, it's an act. the bravado is an act. throughout his business career, media career, the people at the other end of the negotiating table saw that. for some reason, republican politicians, congressional republicans are too afraid, they're too timid. they gave him this power over their party and they've never been able to get it back and now they're not trying. >> it's especially interesting

when you consider what all of the experts on authoritarianism told us on the way in which the authoritarian creates a sense of inevitability around themselves. mckay coppins, thank you for spending time with us. when we return, the implications on the fight on capitol hill over the funding for ukraine. what an end would do to the existential battle against russian invaders. russian invaders all parts working in sync to move your business forward. with a streamlined shipping network. and new, high-speed processing and delivery centers. for more value. more reliability. and more on-time deliveries. the united states postal service is built for how you business. and how you business is with simple, affordable and reliable shipping. usps ground advantage. (♪♪) your ancestry is so much more than names and dates.

(♪♪) c'mon! it's the story of your family - then and now. a story that made your name mean something. a story you're still writing. so discover your heritage. preserve your traditions. represent all that makes you, you. (♪♪)

two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california. represent all that makes you, you. steve garvey, the leading republican,

is too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message.

this is a good first step. this bill is essential for our national security, for the security of our friends in ukraine. failure to pass this bill would only embolden autocrats like putin and xi, who want nothing more than america's decline. >> senate majority leader schumer on the small signs of congress after the senate voted 67-32 to advance aid to ukraine. the bill faces an uphill climb in the house. many republicans in congress are opposed to the legislation, threatening america's leadership on the world stage, as anti-ukrainian aid talking points are embraced by so-called america first republicans on the far right. this week vladimir putin putin sat down with tucker carlson. putin bragged about his relationship with former president trump.

trump, ever vulnerable to flattery, still has the power to torpedo further aid to ukraine. the lead democratic negotiator on the bill, connecticut senator chris murphy telling reuters once he got loud on the immigration bill, the thing fell apart. he turns his flamethrower on ukraine, i wonder how it survives. joining us, berlin based reporter for "time" magazine and the author of "the showman", simon schuster. thank you so much for being with us. talk about us about the danger this funding fight has put ukraine in. >> president zelenskyy has been clear about that, going back to september when he visited washington, he had a long talk with senators on capitol hill and they asked him what happens if we don't give you the aid. he told them very clearly, his answer was, we will lose the war. he put it in those stark terms. that hasn't changed. i think the war is still that

important. also, the ukrainians haven't been sitting on their hands and waiting for this aid to fail. they've been preparing other methods, they've been engaging with the europeans to try to get support, they've been ramping up production of their own weapons domestically. they do still need this aid and i think president zelenskyy's assessment from back in september still holds. >> you really are focused on zelenskyy and you write about zelenskyy's experience, having trump imperil u.s. aid to ukraine. this is what you write about zelenskyy's reaction. quote, i would never want ukraine to be a piece on the map, on a chess dld board of big global players so someone could toss us around, use us as cover, as part of some bargain, president zelenskyy said. i want ukraine to have agency. but the first six months of his tenure, he taught zelenskyy anything about the world, it has a lesson in the ease with which

alliances could shift. your sense of the reaction that donald trump isn't even an office holder in the united states anymore, he's still somehow managing to hold up aid to ukraine? >> yeah, and zelenskyy by now knows trump quite well. i think he's very clear eyed, especially after that experience. really zelenskyy's first big experience in international affairs. he knows what trump is, he knows what to expect. he also understands that no matter who the american voters elect, the ukrainian president will have to deal with that person. so he's prepared for that. but he's not as naive going into this relationship now as he was in 2019. i think now he knows that he needs to make clear to the americans again and again why this is in their interest, why this is in america's national security interest to support ukraine. a lot of people on capitol hill understand that. i've talked to a lot of them. but i'm not sure that trump does. all zelenskyy can do is try to get that message through as well as he can. >> well, there's getting the

message through to the united states and there's getting the message through to its allies, because today you had german chancellor schulz meeting with president biden. our message is clear, we have to do the utmost to prevent russia from winning, if we don't, we might soon wake up in a world more unstable than it was during the cold war. despite our support, ukraine could soon face serious shortages in arms and ammunition. some financial commitments have run out and others need to be extended. the long-term consequences and costs of failing to stop mr. putin's aggression would dwarf any of the investments that we are making now, several arguments there. saying we have already put a down payment on this, it is now incumbent upon us to make good on that investment, a sense of the stakes not just for ukraine but for this global fight for democracy. i just wonder your sense of the ways in which america's allies

are watching not just the result, but how this has happened. the fact that you have a faction of one party so unwilling to support the global fight for democracy, that the united states itself is not able to offer that type of aid to an ally. >> i mean, it's been fascinating for me to observe the kind of role reversal in the last two years between the americans and the europeans, especially germany. back in the beginning of this invasion, the germans were among the more hesitant allies. i talked to chancellor schulz about two months into the invasion and he was making clear that he would not be out front leading, he was counting on the americans to do that. now what we're seeing with all the hesitation and the roadblocks on capitol hill, the germans are actually stepping out in front and taking steps that the other allies of ukraine and the west are not prepared to take. that's been an interesting shift. still, i think all the europeans

and ukrainians understand that the european union does not have the strength to give the support -- to give ukraine all the support it needs to win this war. without american leadership, the numbers don't add up. the europeans need u.s. help and ukraine does as well. >> very, very sobering. thank you so much for joining us. his new book is out now. when we return, it is a political paradox that speaks volumes about where we are at this moment. why do four indictments seem to strengthen donald trump while an exoneration seems to be hurting joe biden? that conversation and what democrats need to be doing about it after a quick break.

♪ ♪ ♪

your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer.

you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire i could stand in the middle of 5th avenue and shoot somebody and i wouldn't lose any voters, okay? it's incredible. >> donald trump back in 2016, those infamous comments have proven to be more accurate than we could have ever predicted. as poll after poll shows that republican voters will not abandon the former president and some republicans even support him more. meanwhile, there has been hand wringing over the documents found in president biden's possession, despite the fact that it exonerates him. as one writer put it, it's funny/sad/astonishing we're in a situation where trump's multiple indictments were advantageous

time and biden's exoneration is politically terrible. joining me, democratic strategist, cornell is back with us. we are in the first 24 hours, so that political assessment is the environment in the first 24 hours. i wonder if you think part of that is a distinction between republican voters and their fealty to donald trump. >> that's spot on. what are we seeing from the republican base over the last couple of years? they are not acting in the same reality and political complex as the rest of us. he could shoot and not lose support. he's going to get 46%, 47%, they don't think the indictments are fair, they don't think he's done anything wrong. the truth of the matter is, what is the 51% or 52% majority of americans going to do, and things like age and these perceptions, they actually do matter. so it's a different sort of

uphill battle in reality for joe biden, and that reality that donald trump doesn't have to battle in, he's locked in. his 46%, 47%, they're not doing anywhere. >> david and i started the party without you so i've been able to ask him this question, which was about how if you're democrats, how you handle some of the adjectives and adverbs that were arguably gratuitous in the special counsel's report, particularly around the president's age and acuity. david jolly made the argument to me, you kind of keep it moving. you focus on the accomplishments of the administration, you focus on the binary choices. and i want to bring this in from stewart stevens, who writes a plea to my democratic friends, it's time to start calling joe biden a great president. not a good one. not a better choice than donald trump. joe biden is a historically great president. say it with a passion backed by the conviction that it's true, because it is. when america needed a quiet

american hero, joe biden has met the moment. republicans, former republicans at least, somehow have clarity around that messaging. >> republicans have always been a little better on messaging than democrats. i think that's spot on. i think the white house and the campaign, they've done the right thing. they've called this gratuitous and sort of a political hit job. it is a personal political hit job and i understand when you call into question the man's death of his son, it crosses the bounds. i understand the president is a little angry and spicy about it. by the way, a lot of us actually like angry joe biden than sort of the sleepy joe biden, as you will. but it's true. i started doing this in tweets this morning, look, i worked for obama in the campaign '08 and '12. a lot of great accomplishments. joe biden has a better story of broad bipartisan transformational accomplishments than even barack obama did.

when you look at our presidents on the world stage after donald trump and how america, every metric, is once again reestablished, the leadership on the world stage right now, he is a great president with great accomplishments and we've got to lean into it. >> obama alums are going to start blowing up your friend. david, i wonder, with all the polling here, there's just how far out we are. but there's also a question of whether or not republicans have -- this will change for them and independents, once they realize they are in a binary choice between joe biden and donald trump, of sort of having additional elements at the margins, if it makes the choice less clear. >> a little bit. but i think you're right to focus in on what i would call the persuadables whose vote might be up for grabs in november. and i think the initial reaction to the biden special counsel report is what it is because they are serious and incredible

allegations of the mishandling of classified information. joe biden is a sitting president. that's a serious matter. the contrast thereafter obviously really begins to hurt and pinch donald trump, and that contrast i think will naturally happen. i think democrats and traditional democratic voters will be unfazed by this report on joe biden. they will stick with him, knowledging his cooperation, and i think republicans will stick with donald trump. but what about those persuadables? and this is where i think how the administration handles this really is important. if anything else, wrestling the bear that is the allegations of his age in the special report, wrestling that bear is off message. it is off message. the message today and every day, as stewart stevens says, needs that be that it's morning in america again. more people will go to work than ever before, home ownership is at an all-time high, the stock market broke a record today and that is because of the hard work

of joe biden, who knows how to govern and govern soberly. let donald trump wrestle with the bear of classified information because that really begins to hurt him among persuadables. joe biden's message is it's morning in america again. >> i've got to ask you one day if you had that message discipline when you were a candidate yourself. >> very good. >> astonishing. >> to your point and to cornell's, you can see in the president this one hurts. this one stings. he's angry, and that's why everybody is out in his defense today. it is understandable. it's a very human moment. >> david jolly, cornell, thank you so much for spending time with us. we're going to sneak in a quick break. we'll be right back.

when my doctor gave me breztri for my copd things changed for me. breztri gave me better breathing, symptom improvement, and reduced flare-ups. breztri won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. don't take breztri more than prescribed. breztri may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis.

call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. ask your doctor about breztri.

new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. ♪i'm hearing different ways for me to screen for colon cancer.♪ ♪it's time to use my voice,♪ ♪i've got a choice, more than one answer.♪ ♪i sat down with my doc.♪ we had a talk. ♪knew just what to say.♪ ♪i asked for cologuard and did it my way.♪ cologuard is a one-of-a kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪i did it my way!♪

a federal judge has ordered former trump aid peter navarro to report to prison, denying his request to stay his four month sentence while he appeals his conviction on two counts of attempt of congress. the u.s. district judge noted in a ruling yesterday the federal appeals court in d.c. may still hold off his sentence. this concludes navarro's extended journey through the district court. if that ruling holds, he may be the first member of trump's inner circle to go to prison from crimes stemming from the effort to subvert the election. three years after the fact, but still a step toward accountability. thank you for spending part of your friday with us. you can catch me, tomorrow and

sunday morning. 8:00 a.m. eastern for the weekend. our guests include michigan secretary of state, jocelyn benson and former national security adviser john bolton. "the beat" starts right after this quick break. liberty bushumal. libtreally blubatoo. mark that one. that was nice! i think you're supposed to stand over there. oh am i? thank you. so, a couple more? we'll just...we'll rip. we'll go quick. libu smeebo. libu bribu. limu bibu...and me. doug: he's an emu! only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ it's odd how in an instant things can transform. slipping out of balance into freefall. i'm glad i found stability amidst it all. gold. standing the test of time.

(♪♪) your ancestry is so much more than names and dates. (♪♪) c'mon! it's the story of your family - then and now. a story that made your name mean something. a story you're still writing. so discover your heritage. preserve your traditions. represent all that makes you, you. (♪♪)

so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. represent all that makes you, you. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around... and right now, you can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan. all on the most reliable 5g network nationwide. ditch the other guys and you'll save hundreds. get a free line of unlimited intro for 1 year when you buy one unlimited line. and for a limited time, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us. i'm daniel lurie switch today! and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e.

a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. welcome to this special edition of "the beat" with ari melber. we talk about history, we