we can negotiate some sort of settlement where ukraine is forced to give away 20% of its territory or crimea or whatever. no one should think for a second that putin is going to stop there. certainly the balkan countries don't. other nato countries don't. they're all worried that putin will storms through all of ukraine and not stop there and continue westward. this is very disconcerting for everyone in europe and people in united states who would like to see peace in europe. >> his defenders have said this is all provoked by nato's expansion. and he spent 45 minutes like, if you go back to the ninth century, the cradle our civilization is in kyiv and it belongs to. us tommy vietor, thank you very much. that is all in. this is all, and that is all in. that's all we need to say. that is all in for the week? alex wagner tonight starts right now. good evening, alex. >> i think that was all in. this is all in for the week. >> how about, i just do that? >> i'm done, i'm out of here.

>> i did it, america. >> can i just say, tucker carlson getting an hour-long history lesson from latin vladimir putin on eighth or ninth century russia is must-see tv. it maybe is must-see tv. >> now. the most painful thing you can possibly see. >> but the premise is, wow, here we are 21st century. have a great rest of your night the doesn't involve all in. >> and thank you to home, thank you to you at home for joining me this hour. so yesterday, was supreme court day, a day when you at home may have familiarized yourself with the civil war origins of the 14th amendment of the united states constitution. as justices on the high court heard arguments for removing donald trump from the colorado ballot for stoking an insurrection in violation of section three of the 14th amendment. and by all accounts, the justices posture during this arguments suggest the court is looking for ways to punt on

that central question, did donald trump incited insurrection, and instead hand the issue may be to congress. basically to let some other group of people deal with the possible insurrectionist president being elected another day. which would seem to be a win for donald trump. seemed to be a win. because even if mr. trump was taking his victory lap, a different judge in a different courtroom released this one page order. it is here by ordered, adjudged, and decreed that after a jury trial before the honorable luis a caplan, plaintive e. jean carroll has judgment for damages against the defendant, donald j trump, for an aggregate sum of $83,300,000. that order is essentially a bill. donald trump must pay the 83 point $3 million he owes to e. jean carroll immediately. it does not matter that donald trump is appealing this case.

it does not matter the dome trump is running for president. it does not matter the donald trump believes he had a good day there's been court yesterday. the law is binding. donald trump must either fork over the money or pony up some collateral to someone who will fork over the money for him. this order from judge kaplan is an important reminder that while trump may have breathed a sigh of relief at the supreme court yesterday, there is still a lot of legal peril on the horizon for him. the very near horizon, like next week. recall that at the beginning of this week a d.c. appeals court thoroughly and unanimously rejected trump's claim that he has presidential immunity and he cannot be prosecuted, and cannot be prosecuted for trying to overturn the 2020 election. that federal election interference case against trump has effectively been put on ice while this presidential immunity issue works its way through the courts. but trump has until monday to tell the supreme court whether

he plans to appeal. whether or not the court decides to keep this case frozen after monday, to essentially make time for trump's appeal, could tell us a lot about whether this court is sympathetic to mr. trump or whether this court is quite the opposite. many legal experts here believe that the way in the court is about to hand trump in the 14th amendment case may be offset by a potential rejection in his bid for immunity in the election interference case. as professor richard hasse writes for slate, a grand bargain that appears to make sense as a compromise is beginning to come interview. the supreme court unanimously holds that colorado does not have the power to remove donald trump from its ballot but in a separate case it rejects his immunity argument and makes trump go on trial this spring or summer on federal objection elections to rig subversion charges. so it's a big moment in which we

will know if the supreme court is ready to let it go forward before the november election. but that's not it. it's not the only case where donald trump is relying on presidential immunity to shield him from accountability. there is also the civil lawsuit brought by capitol police officers who are trying to hold trump silently liable for the violence they faced on january six. trump's lawyers have until thursday to ask the supreme court to weigh in on that is. well and thursday is also the days that trump's lawyers are doing the manhattan courtroom for a pre-trial hearing in trump 's criminal case involved hush money involved to an adult film actress, stormy daniels. that hearing could be when we learn when that case will go to trial. then there is trump's new york civil fraud case, the one where he could be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars and liquidate the trump organization in new york. we are still awaiting judge arthur engoron's villa verdict

in that case, which could come any day now, very possibly next week. arguments in that case finished about a month ago, but that's not does not stop trump's lawyers from getting into fights with the judge as he weighs his willing. at the president and gordon is worried that one of the top financial executives in the trump organization committed perjury, or that's the reporting. so judge engoron wrote asked for any information about that executive and his possibility of perjury. which seems to remain in comparison to trump's financial dealings. trump's lawyer sent judge engoron a scathing response, a response calling the judges request for information unprecedented, inappropriate, and troubling. well, yesterday, judge engoron fired back. when i sent my straightforward narrow request for information i was not seeking to initiate a wide-ranging debate with council. however, you are misleading

response grossly mischaracterizes the letter that i wrote, and i feel compelled to respond. you and your co-counsel have been questioning my impartiality since the early days of this case, presumably because i sometimes rule against your clients. that whole approach is getting old. it really seems like trump's lawyers are going maybe out of their way to angry this judge, who was about to decide whether or not to dissolve trump's entire business in the state and make him cough up as much as maybe 300 and $70 million. these lawyers are doing it a time when several of trump's other cases, civil and criminal, might be about to start moving forward. it's all a very interesting strategy. but hey, at least trump will probably still get to run for president in the state of colorado. joining me now is george conway, a conservative lawyer and contributor to the atlantic,

also with me rick hasen, ucla professor, director of safeguarding democracy and author the upcoming book, a real right to vote. professor hasen, let me start with you. i know both of you have important essential reads in the last week. i'd love, professor, if you could talk a little bit more about the grand bargain you see developing and what it portends for this potential presidential immunity appeal from donald trump. >> it's kind of a fortuitous for jack smith, special counsel, that the immunity case is arriving at the supreme court right as the court is deciding what to do in the disqualification case. you may remember the jack smith went tried to leapfrog court of appeals, to get the court to rule on this. the whole ball game is timing. now it seems like with a majority of justices, liberal and conservative, seeming to side with trump in the

disqualification case, you can see that there could be a lot of pressure on the other side to say let's let this case go to trial. the case on election subversion in washington d.c.. so trump winds when it gets to stay on the ballot. but he loses a big one and goes on trial in the spring or summer for election subversion in washington, d.c. there for letting the voters decide if trump is disqualified from serving for office. >> can i follow and that? when we hear the term grand bargain we usually think of congressional negotiations or legislative negotiations. is it now sort of accepted that the supreme court is so clearly letting politics, or at least political perceptions, intervene or at least inform the decisions they're making in big pieces of litigation? >> i don't think they're going to be bargaining and saying all vote this way if you vote that way. but i think that this is a tacit agreement in these kinds of things, how much pushback, say, the liberal justices are gonna

get in the disqualification case. remember, you've got six republican appointed judges. three democratic appointed justices. it's not gonna be a good look for the supreme court if it's a 6 to 3 decision. i don't think it's likely to be. but if justices kagan in jackson at least are willing to go along here, then it takes five votes to put a stay in place and that immunity case. it takes only four to have a hearing. the justices have got to know that all the eyes are on them and it's going to look a lot less lopsided if the court gives with one hand it takes with the other, even if they're not engaged in the kind of horse trading you might see on the floor of the house of representatives. >> not as many horses to be traded, shall we say. george, i know you're a fan of the dc circuit court of appeals ruling on presidential immunity. i believe it's 57-page opinion. i'll read what you wrote in the atlantic. the strength of the appeals court opinion makes it far more likely that the supreme court will do nothing. any court, including the supreme court, would have a tough time writing

a better opinion than them on the d.c. circuit published today. this is when it came out earlier this week. the best course of action would be for the supreme court to deny a stay entered and i review all together in a matter of days. george, how confident are you in this? and can you talk about what you're gonna be looking for after trump presumably makes his appeal for a stay on monday? >> i'm not confident enough to place a monetary bet on it. but i do think there's a substantial likelihood that the supreme court will deny served. and i believe the bottom line of professor now hasen hasen. i wouldn't call it a trade-off. i think what's going on here, and i think it was seriously reflected in the argument the other day is they don't want to be on this election bound highway. they don't want anything to do

with affected the outcome of affecting the 2024 race or appearing to and they want to get out of this business and they want to get out of the controversy. they have a lot of things on their plates. and not just chief justice roberts but the people and both wings of the court are concerned about the institutional standing of the court, and i think that here, the same motivations that are caused in the amendment the other day, to kind of avoid the issue and avoid controversy, would lead them to deny certiorari and deny the argument put forward in the litigation agreement. that impetus would be compounded by the fact that the

opinion is so good. they don't really have anything to add here, so why risk the institution, any institutional criticism, why waste the time and effort of the court to get into this when it's already been solved by the d.c. circuit, particularly when donald trump can get another crack at the supreme court after he is, as i believe he will, be convicted and sentenced. >> professor, can i get you to respond to, i guess george has suggested maybe the terminology might be exit strategy rather than grand parking. these are too convenient off- ramps punted to congress on the 14th amendment and leave it with the d.c. circuit court and both ways the supreme court doesn't have to get into the mark of what george called the election highway. a lot of mixed metaphors. >> the donald trump. mark >> yes, the dome trump. mark let's assume that we're all agreement in about what the

court might do. what do you look for next week about the court's behavior after the deadline passes? >> the courts got a few options. one thing you can do is deny this day. not rule on any, no petition yet, which will let the case go to trial. it could treat this day as a kind of -- itself. this may be fairly unlikely and they said another super fast track like they did the 14th amendment case. we get an opinion from the supreme court so they can be fined along a question of presidential immunity and relation to criminal liability and we got a ruling by sometime in march or april and summer trial, or the court could take the case and slow walk it. i think that last one's really outcome determinative. it will deprive the american people of the chance to know whether trump is guilty of the trial of election subversion of all of the criminal cases, all of the civil cases, this is the one that is most directly related to what his strategy was now nationally.

the american people need to see what the evidence is a need to let a jury consider it. if the court doesn't want to interfere, it's as much about timing as it is about what the courts is in terms of what is opinion would say about immunity, which i agree with george, it's very likely to agree on the merits with what the court of appeal has said. >> george, what do you think of that in terms of the middle road suggestion that the professor is talking about, where the supreme court effectively wants to put its stamp on the presidential immunity question and they hand down their decision or their opinion in march or april? there are some folks who would say any delay in this is a gift to trump. even if the court ultimately basically says the same thing is the d.c. circuit court of appeal, the fact that they will have, in that process, frozen the trial for another month, two months, three months, is a win for donald trump. >> yeah, i mean, i think donald trump's legal team are

scratching and cloying for every day they can get here. which is a surprising thing because normally if you have been charged with a crime you want to prove your innocence if you are in fact innocent. but let's leave that aside. if they issue a decision in april, may, or june, i think there's still a good chance you could get a trial before the election. maybe even before the republican national convention. i think a trial could be held in 8 to 10 weeks after a decision from the supreme court. but i think to go back to the scenarios that the professor pointed out, my favorite scenario is, and maybe he mentioned it, i think it's a variant of his, my favorite scenario, the one i am praying for, is that monday donald trump files his application to stay the district court for stealing says the d.c. district is requiring him to do. and then an hour later the justice department, jack smith,

files his opposition to this day, the stay application, in which case the stay application will be fully submitted to the supreme court, and within a matter of days the court could deny this day of application and they could do something else. they could do what rick mentioned, they could treat the stay application is a petition for -- and say not only is this day application is denied, the cert is denied, and that would send the case back to the district court and we could have a trial in may. >> it's going to be a busy week, maybe. well certainly, listen, if your trump lawyer it's a busy week. if you're the american public there's a lot to be on the lookout for. george conway, professor rick hasen, thank you for your time this evening. we have lots more ahead tonight, including the machinations inside the department of justice around the highly cherry ridge report on president biden,

classified documents at age. first special counsel jack smith is calling out trump's lawyers big league. more on the mass at mar-a-lago, after the break. you can replace multiple cleaning products. try dawn powerwash. a test or approve a medication. we didn't have to worry about any of those things thanks to the donations.

and our family is forever grateful because it's completely changed our lives. it's time. yes, the time has come for a fresh approach to dog food. everyday, more dog people are deciding it's time to quit the kibble and feed their dogs fresh food from the farmer's dog. made by vets and delivered right to your door precisely portioned for your dog's needs. it's an idea whose time has come. ♪♪ ♪3, 4♪ ♪ it's an idea whose time has come. ♪hey♪ ♪ ♪are you ready for me♪ ♪are you ready♪ ♪are you ready♪

is it possible to count on my internet like my customers count on me? it is with comcast business. keeping you up and running with 99.9% network reliability. and security that helps outsmart threats to your data. moaire dida twoo? your data, too. there's even round-the- clock customer support. so you can be there for your customers. hey billy, how you doin? with comcast business, reliability isn't just possible. thanks. it's happening. get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to a $1000 prepaid card

with a qualifying internet package. don't wait, call and switch today! >> you might have missed it among all the 14th amendment talk this week but things down in the mar-a-lago classified documents case have been very busy. one of the many filings this week was a scathing response from special counsel jack smith tour a quest made by trump's lawyers for more time for pretrial discovery. now if the judge in this case grants trump's request, it would delay the schedule may 20th trial even longer than it already seems to be delayed. a special counsel smith wrote, trump's objective is plain, to delay the trial as long as possible. the tactics they deploy a

relentless and misleading. they will stop at nothing to stall the adjudication of the charges against them by a fair and impartial jury of citizens. smith continues, their motive is additionally revealed by the nature of one of the motions that the defendants now suggests that they intend to file, a motion to dismiss based upon purported presidential immunity. despite the fact that the criminal conduct charged in the superseding indictment took place entirely after defendant trump left office. joining me now, joyce vance, former u.s. attorney in the northern district of alabama and professor at the university of alabama school of law. toys, thank you for being here. i feel like for a long time, jack smith has been restrained, at least in the writing of a lot of these filings. this one, however seems to reveal a man frustrated. who do you think is the audience for this particular file? is it judge cannon, or is it

maybe the 11th circuit court of appeals? >> you know, judge cannon is the audience for, i think, jack smith's increasing outrage this week. it's in this motion, it's in a squabble over potentially releasing the names of witnesses. federal prosecutors are very measured. there is always someone to read your motion before you file it. that was my job for a long time is the appellate even my office. something that i did was, i made sure that not even a hint of discourtesy crept into our pleadings when we found them in front of the federal judge. so you know that for this strident overtone to be used in a variety of motions, it's a deliverance strategic decision. they're putting on her on notice that she has crossed the line at the won't tolerate the commission of clear error. >> it's not the only filing that the special counsel's office has made this week. he's also saying plainly that he thinks judge cannon made a,

quote, clear error in her order to unseal, i believe it is redacted discovery documents, the special counsel's office has said they effectively releasing these documents would expose witnesses and would trigger intimidations and threats against, again, not just witnesses but even judge cannon herself. in the course of that we learn that there is an ongoing separate federal investigation into witness intimidation, or threats made against a prospective government witness. so it seems like there's courtesy to the argument jacks mitt is making here to his plea to judge cannon. and yet, joyce, do you think this will fall on deaf ears? >> it's an interesting question. we are super nerdy in the weeds here in terms of talking about these sorts of pleadings, about discovery. this is the sort of stuff that doesn't usually happen in a case. most judges are very concerned about the safety of witnesses.

at the first with a potential threat to a witness, most judges will take every step necessary to protect those folks. that's not what is happening here. and so jack smith has, as you say, accused judge cannon of committing clear error. that's the standard he has to allege in this sort of technical motion for her to reconsider one of her earlier rulings. and he is right. she has committed clear error, requiring him to prove stuff that he doesn't have to prove. but the most important thing to know about this is that he is clearly outraged that she would expose witnesses and that she would expose information about an ongoing federal investigation to donald trump. she has ordered him to turn that over. i had not expected things to come to a head in this case until she ruled on the classified information procedures act hearing she is holding next week. but jack smith may be on track to go to the 11th circuit

earlier than that. i say maybe consciously, but it is possible that they would file a motion called a writ of mandate must, asking the 11th circuit to order her to protect the witnesses identities from disclosure rather than run the risk that they be exposed to harm. >> can we talk about that? that's the breaking news this hour, the judge cannon is effectively ignoring the special counsel's pleas, the concerns that he has voiced about the witness is under threat or intimidation is saying the court finds an insufficient basis provided to deviate from the traditional adversarial process in this instance, which is to say these documents need to be shared with trump's counsel. sorry, jack smith. i mean, does that seem unusual to you? me >> i don't think unusual even begins to capture it. it's really extraordinary. prosecutors have to be able to protect witnesses, not just in

this case but in every case, because we ask people to come forward, detail the truth so we can hold criminals accountable. sometimes criminals aren't super nice people. in this case we've got a defendant who, whether through his fault or through the implications his followers take from his comments, witnesses, people who have spoken out against him, have been exposed to risk. in some cases, speaker pelosi's husband paul comes to mind, exposed to higher because his wife had become one of trump's political targets. so look, if you are a federal judge, what you are doing here is listening to prosecutors. you're carefully evaluating evidence of the law. when they come to you seeing this is so serious that we have an ongoing investigation that we need to protect, you don't then turn that over to donald trump the defendant. >> it seems like there is a case to be made, whether now or in the future, about whether judge cannon is the great judge

for this case. but that all remains me to be. thank you, joyce vance, for sharing this friday night with me. coming up, ben rhodes joins me to discuss israel's new evacuation order in southern gaza, where over 1 million displaced civilians have reached the literal end of the road. that is next. me me

it's time. yes, the time has come for a fresh approach to dog food. everyday more dog people are deciding it's time to quit the kibble and feed their dogs fresh food from the farmer's dog. made by vets and delivered right to your door precisely portioned for your dog's needs. it's an idea whose time has come.

(♪♪) (♪♪) ♪ cause you're free ♪ ♪ to do what you want to do ♪ (♪♪) ♪ do what you want ♪ ♪ do what you want to do ♪ ♪ do what you want ♪ ♪ do what you want to do ♪ ♪ do what you want ♪♪ two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california. ♪ do what you want to do ♪ 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. you want to see who we are as americans? i'm peter dixon and in kenya... we built a hospital that provides maternal care. as a marine... we fought against the taliban and their crimes against women. and in hillary clinton's state department... we took on gender-based violence in the congo. now extremists are banning abortion and contraception right here at home. so, i'm running for congress to help stop them. for your family... and mine. i approved this message because this is who we are.

>> >> panic crowd was internally displaced palestinians in gaza's southernmost city of rafah, reacted to a strike feet from the tent city they now call home. this is satellite image of rafah at the start of the war back in october. this is the same area last month. all of the dots you see on screen our chance and temporary shelters. before the war, rafah was home to 280,000 people. it is now home to more than 1.5 million. more than 600,000 of those people are children living in cramped conditions without enough food or water or medicine, in what the u.n. has called a pressure cooker of despair. in october, israel ordered more than 1 million gazans to

evacuate the northern half of the palestinian territory. in december, israel divided gaza into more than 2000 zones, and dropped leaflets ordering civilians from one zone to another. ultimately israeli forces pushed the nearly entire civilian population of gaza to its southernmost border. today life for palestinians in and around rafah has become even more dire. israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu has ordered these raley military to come up with the plan to evacuate all of the civilians from rafah, with the intention of sending ground troops in after those civilians are gone. but this is already literally the end of the road in gaza, and this population is already hanging on by a thread. so where exactly does israel expect these one and a half million people to go? me too enemy now, ben rhodes, former deputy national security adviser to president obama and

co-host of pawed save the world. thank you for being here this evening. there have been so many tough developments in this entire horrible war that began in october, principally, in terms of israeli forces going into gaza. i wonder, if you have a thought of the degree to which the israeli government has planned or intends to plan on a strategy to deal with 1.4 million displaced palestinians? me >> there's clearly no plan whatsoever. keep in mind, as you said, those people were pushed down into rafah, told to go down there. some of these people have evacuated three or four times from other places. their homes are destroyed. they have very little if any access to food and water. aid trucks are having a lot of trouble getting in. israel's pushing for a cut off of all assistance to the u.n. agency that provides assistance to gaza. now they're telling these people to move, but they're not clear at all about where they're

supposed to go or how that is supposed to be safe. meanwhile their airstrikes taking place around us. the question is, does israel have the intention to push these people, trying to push these people out of gaza and into egypt? the palestinians don't want to leave because they think that if they leave their homeland they'll never be allowed back. they are pretty good reason to think that. there are people in the israeli government who have literally had ceremonies where they talked about wanting to build settlements and gaza. egyptians also don't want them to come into egypt for their own purposes as well as not wanting to see them displaced. there's literally no place for these place to go. that includes 6000 children. it's hard to see if this goes forward, it's not just another absolute humanitarian catastrophe compounding what has already taken place. >> what is the role of egypt here in staving off this mass displacement? egypt has been very clear it is not one palestinian refugees across its border.

but at what point, logically, there's nowhere else for them to go but to run up to that very border. how can egypt leverage its literal position and all of this to ameliorate the situation? >> what's complicated is that rafah border crossing, people have heard about this, this is the only place really where aid can get in from the south and where some people have been permitted to leave going south. in a very controlled way. and because that border has been enforced as part of the israel blockade of gaza for well over a decade, it is fortified. and egypt has the support of the arab world in preventing a flood of palestinian refugees coming in, in part because the arab world supports the palestinian position that they don't want to be displaced. the palestinians, even palestinians who suffered so gravely, don't want to leave gaza, like i said, because they think they'll never get back. that has basically been the past when palestinians have been displaced from the lands in the past.

they have not been permitted to return. so we will see how dire the circumstance gets. we'll see if the intent is to push palestinians south across that border or whether the intention is to move them around somewhere else on the gaza strip. i should also say, israel has diplomatic relations with egypt . they would be endangered, constant compromised at, least if israeli policy was to push them into egypt. and the u.s. government in the biden administration has been more outspoken on this issue and raising concerns about rafah than they have about past military operations. there's a lot of moving parts here. >> i want to talk about the u.s. position. this began with the heinous hamas attack on october 7th. for a long time the rhetoric focused on the hostages, the retrieval of the hostages, and rooting out hamas. but at this point, prime minister netanyahu is making clear that yes, of course the plan is to destroy hamas, but afterwards israel must retain security control over gaza for an indefinite period and the

far-right in israel, as you point out, is calling for the resettlement of jewish people in gaza and four palestinians to emigrate out of gaza. president biden called this, i think the phrase, was over the top, yesterday. i know that's an escalation in terms of criticism, but over the top is when you wear sequins and feathers at the same time. i'm a little bit stunned that given the explicit nature of what netanyahu is aiming to do here, that the administration is still, i mean, rather timid in its language, given the dire situation that people are facing their. >> yes. let's just be clear here, alex. hamas initiated this on october 7th. since then we've had almost 37 palestinians killed. we've had well over 10,000 palestinian children killed. those are not people and hamas. hamas cannot be defeated and

destroy it militarily. they are not going to come out and surrender and say that there's no such thing as hamas anymore. their leadership is out of gaza. as the population moves around, i'm sure there is some hamas elements embedded in that population. and moreover, an entire generation, if not generations, of palestinians are being radicalized by the scale of destruction that's raining down on them and you cannot rescue hostages with military force. it doesn't work. they haven't been able to do it. the hostages have only gotten out of diplomacy. the government has made clear time and again, israeli government, that it will not support or allow a palestinian state and that it intends to administer gaza. all of these things are against the policy of the united states. i'm just saying it's over the top is not only not in line with the scale of the devastation we are seeing. it doesn't line up to the fact that there is totally discordant positions here. the u.s. position is that there should be a palestinian state

and israeli government is that there should never be one. the u.s. position is we are concerned about gaza, in netanyahu saying we're gonna do this operation in rafah. at some point there needs to be some consequences, some policy separation, some conditioning of assistance, some willingness to be openly critical of israel, of this israeli government, internationally. if there is not, then it doesn't matter if you call it over the top. they're just gonna keep doing what they're doing. at some point this strategy of essentially embracing israel substantively, and when i say israel i mean netanyahu, he's the one calling the shots, if you're not willing to question that approach, there's no reason to be believed that beating netanyahu will change his approach. he's more interested in what his coalition says than what president biden says. >> not to mention, bibi netanyahu's political and

popularity in israel and his disinterest in joe biden being reelected in november, there are many signs pointing to a different position for the white house. ben rhodes, thanks for your time tonight. we have much more ahead this evening, including one former presidential candidate hillary clinton told me earlier this week about president biden's age and how she should handle questions about it. that's next. 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. ♪

when you have chronic kidney disease... ...there are places you'd like to be. like here. and here.

not so much here. farxiga reduces the risk of kidney failure which can lead to dialysis. ♪far-xi-ga♪ farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. when you have chronic kidney disease, it's time to ask your doctor for farxiga. because there are places you want to be. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪far-xi-ga♪

after advil: let's dive in! but...what about your back? it's fineeeeeeee! [splash] before advil: advil dual action fights pain two ways. advil targets pain at the source, acetaminophen blocks pain signals. advil dual action.

at age 81, joe biden is the oldest sitting president in american history, and biden has addressed this fact in 2 different ways. he's adopted a sort of useful anti-hero alter ego dark brandon, that's not it as a meme on the far-right, biden with a red laser eyes. but the president has come to embrace it. we have since seen biden drink coffee from a dark brandon mug. his campaign says dark brandon stickers, t-shirts, baseball hats and tumblers. if you had to click on a broken leg on the biden campaign website, you won't see the usual 4 oh 4 era. you will see dark brandon. the other way president biden has addressed his age is by really playing up his seniority. i november, biden posted to instagram, a photo of his birthday cake in flames. he wrote, thank you for the birthday well wishes today, everyone. it turns out on your 146th birthday, run out of space for candles. last april, he shared a few

zingers at the white house correspondents dinner. >> after, all i believe in the first amendment, not just because my good friend jimmy madison wrote it -- [laughter] [applause] you call me old. i call it being seasoned. you say i am ancient. i say i am wise. you say i am over the hill. don lemon would say that is a man in his prime. >> now, the latest national msnbc poll shows that 76 percentage of voters are concerned about biden's age. on wednesday, i asked at the presidential candidate hillary clinton about this fact and how biden should handle it? >> the thing, the x-factor in

all of this, the thing we keep seeing in poll after poll is concerned about biden's age, full stop. what should he do on this? is it a matter of a sort of like underscoring is a boundless energy, or should he his 8 decades on earth and the great wisdom he's gained after all of this? >> all of the above. i talk to people in the white house all the time. they know it's an issue but as i like to say, look, it's a legitimate issue. it's a legitimate issue for trump, who is only 2 years younger, right? it's an issue. on to say that, then you also have to talk about what is at stake in the election, and i am for joe biden for reelection on the merits. i think he's done a good job as president. i think you should continue to get out and campaign. he's been campaigning vigorously across the country, and he actually does events where he interacts with people, unlike trump, who stands on a stage and, you know, goes on and on for 90 minutes.

biden is taking questions, talking to people -- >> not from the media. >> but that's okay. that's okay, i am sorry, alex. >> we will respectfully disagree. >> neither is trump, neither one of them. they, at this point in the campaign are trying to communicate with as few people as possible. i think biden should also lean into the fact that he is experienced, and that experience is not just in the political arena, it's like the stuff of, you know, human experience. >> character. >> character, wisdom. i think he should be willing to really hold that out, say, how do you pull together a coalition to stand against russian aggression? you don't do it through photo ops, you do it because you have long experience of dealing with leaders, and they know what is at stake. i think sometimes he gets about it. he sometimes makes a joke, we have not done something like this since james madison. i have talked to him about

that. things like that, sure -- >> i just turned 113 years old -- >> yeah, exactly. >> coming up, a doctor justice department reporter devlin barrett from the washington post about what happened inside the justice department that led to a report of characterizing the president as elderly and forgetful, that is next. that . (♪♪) (♪♪) (♪♪) book in the hotels.com app to find your perfect somewhere. i'm starting to think this was a bad idea. what! we could find a better gift on etsy's new gift mode. oh! can i see that? ♪ happy birthday... ♪ it's a people cake! don't panic. gift easy with gift mode, new on etsy.

feeling claritin clear is like... ♪♪ is she? playing with the confidence of a pro and getting all up in that grass as if she doesn't have allergies? yeah. nice.

(avo) kate made progress with her mental health... ...but her medication caused unintentional movements in her face, hands, and feet called tardive dyskinesia, or td. so her doctor prescribed austedo xr— a once-daily td treatment for adults. ♪ as you go with austedo ♪ austedo xr significantly reduced kate's td movements. some people saw a response as early as 2 weeks. with austedo xr, kate can stay on her mental health meds— (kate) oh, hi buddy! (avo) austedo xr can cause depression, suicidal thoughts, or actions in patients with huntington's disease. pay close attention to and call your doctor if you become depressed, have sudden changes in mood, or have suicidal thoughts. don't take if you have liver problems, are taking reserpine, tetrabenazine, or valbenazine. austedo xr may cause irregular or fast heartbeat, or abnormal movements. seek help for fever, stiff muscles, problems thinking, or sweating. common side effects include inflammation of the nose and throat, insomnia and sleepiness.

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

wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening. -- joining me now is devlin barrett, the justice department reporter and covering the trial newsletter for the washington post. he's also the author of october surprise, how the fbi tried to save itself and crush the election? devin, you're the perfect person to talk to in this

moment. i think a lot of folks are wondering, how did, what was merely garland's role in approving the report by the white house? the way asked calls politically motivated in its language about president biden's cognitive decline, alleged cognitive decline. the white house preemptively offered a rebuttal, calling it highly prejudicial language. the kind of criticism of an uncharged party that violates a long-standing department practice and particle. can you flush out exactly where merrick garland and president biden's appointee here fits into all of this? >> so, part at the challenge here is that there are two competing impulses within the justice department, one is to allow any special counsel to include -- >> okay, i think we lost devlin barrett there, so we are going to go back and play sound of i

am sorry, vice president harris -- do we have in? we have devin barrett. devin, are you with us? >> i am, is this any better? >> this is great, we have a live show, no frozen stream. >> there was no snowstorm, i'm sorry. >> we appreciate the bravery. you talked about the competing interests inside the department of justice, and that's something that the attorney general must do. please continue. >> they have a lot of independents. at the same time, the justice department has a long-standing tradition to decide to not charge individuals, you don't dirtied them up on the way. out that is what you saw, which was so problematic about the way that they closed, for example, the hillary clinton email investigation. james comey, the fbi director at the time, announced that he would not pursue charges, but then proceeded to say negative things about her. here, you have a situation where the special counsel robert hur in explaining his decision, and in essentially a

delegation memo, would the justice department called a degradation memo, goes through -- >> i think the snowstorm is getting the better of us. i am going to go a little bit early to my friend jonathan capehart in for lawrence o'donnell. actually, no, we are not going to do that. we're rolling with all the punches tonight, we're going to listen to what vice president kamala harris had to say about president biden and the characterization of president biden in that report from special counsel robert hur, take a listen. >> the way that the presidents demeanor in that report was characterize could not be more wrong on the facts and clearly politically motivated, gratuitous. and so i will say, that what it goes to the rural and responsibility of a prosecutor in a situation like that, we

should expect that there would be a higher level of integrity than what we saw. >> that was vice president harris offering a forceful defense of the president that she serves, president joe biden. there is a lot to talk about on this front, my friend, jonathan capehart, who is in for lawrence o'donnell tonight. the last word with lawrence o'donnell is going to fluid the, seamlessly star a few seconds early here. jonathan, i wonder if you have any thoughts about president, vice presidents defense of president biden? of president biden? >> one, you can say, of course, she would say that. she is the vice president. her role is to beat the defender of the administration and of the president in this situation. let's not forget that vice president harris is a prosecutor. she was the attorney general of the state of california. she was the district attorney in san francisco. she knows how prosecutors are supposed to comport themselves at the city level and at