>> which is why i alone can fix it. >> and so as we start off the new year, the one nine day four, thanks to steve kornacki for filling in here and thanks to you for slipping away for a while. we're back. that is our broadcast for this thursday evening. thank you so very much for being here with us. good night from nbc news headquarters here in new york. >> thank you at home for joining us this hour. happy thursday. it is an historic day. today the 116th congress was officially sworn in two years after being exiled from power in a shocking election result that they did not expect, and the republicans did not expect, and pole roadsters did not expect. democrats have now come roaring back with their biggest midterm election victory in modern history, and they now, as of today, have the majority in the

house of representatives. the 116th congress is the most diverse class of lawmakers in the history of our country. today, both the congressional hispanic caucus and the congressional black caucus swore in their largest numbers ever. the progressive caucus, members of congress who proudly identify them seflds as liberals or progressives, the progressive caucus is now on track to include about half the entire democratic caucus in the house. a record 102 women were sworn in today to serve in this congress. 35 of those 102 women will be serving in congress for the very first time. today the youngest african-american woman ever to serve in congress took her seat. so did the first muslim women, plural, as did the first native american women, plural. there were a lot of firsts as the 116th congress took their

seats today. but i want to start with something that happened today that has happened once before. today nancy pelosi took back the gavel to become speaker of the house. that puts her third in line to the presidency, second in the line of presidential succession after the vice-president. nancy pelosi, of course, has already been speaker of the house. she is the first person in more than 60 years to return to the speakership for a second time. still, though, she is the only woman to ever hold the speakership, to ever hold the gavel. and if little girl watching at home, if by some chance you ever find yourself in a similar position as nancy pelosi, god willing, may you be so lucky as to have a guy like this get the honor of introducing you and putting your name in nomination. >> the scripture says that weeping may endure during the long night, but joy will come in the morning. madam clerk, it is with great

joy that i rise today as directed by the house democratic caucus to place the name of nancy pelosi in nomination to be the next speaker of the united states house of representatives. [ cheers and applause ] >> nancy pelosi captained the ship that defeated the effort to privatize social security, rescued our economy in the midst of the great recession, saved the american automobile industry, provided affordable health care to more than 20 million americans. [ applause ] and the 116th congress, she will continue to fight hard for the people. nancy pelosi will fight to lower health care costs, strengthen the affordable care act, protect people with preexisting

conditions, increase pay for everyday americans, enact a real infrastructure plan, clean up corruption, defend the dreamers, fix the voting rights act, and end the era of voter suppression once and for all. [ applause ] we'll fight for a country that provides for the poor, works for working families, makes sense for the middle class, stands up for senior citizens, inowe vindicates in the inner city and strengthens suburban communities. nancy pelosi is a woman of faith, a loving wife, a mother of five, a grandmother of nine, a sophisticated strategist, a legendary legislator, a voice for the voiceless, a defender of the disenfranchised, a powerful

profound, prophetic principled public servant and that's why we stand squarely behind her today. let me be clear, house democrats are down with n.d.p. nancy de la sandro pelosi, the once and future speaker of the united states of house of representatives. i proudly place her name in nomination. may god bless her. may god bless the united states of america. [ applause ] >> that was congressman hakeem jeffries of new york placing in nomination the name of nancy pelosi to be speaker of the house. and getting a bunch of standing ovations for her, and one for himself, i think, in the process. one for himself for placing her name in nomination in a way that multiple times brought people to their feet.

honestly, though, the whole she bang today of swearing in the new congress, transferring power from the republicans to the democrats, it was kind of like that, lots of lawmakers today wore these blue buttons to support pelosi during the vote. madame speaker. people took photos. installed a new plaque installing her once again at speaker of the house. when it came time for the official swearing in, they had a whole table of bibles and other holy books and law books and constitutions to choose from. fresh men lawmakers took selfies with each other as they stepped onto the house floor as lawmakers for the first time. freshmen lawmakers and not so freshmen lawmakers. when sherisse davids and deb holland, the first native american women in the house were sworn in, they embraced, wiped away tears. eric swalwell held his four month old daughter while he cast his vote for nancy pelosi. had to kind of dance while he

did it to keep her happy. ilan omar celebrated with her kids once she took the oath of office today. abigail span berger showed her daughter today a scarf with pictures of all the different women who had been on the ballot this year. i should also mention that thereafter they were also spotted taking pictures with flat stanley. one of nancy pelosi's granddaughters almost stole the show herself today. she was so stoked to be there, so stoked to watch members of congress vote for her grandma to be speaker. when it was nancy pelosi's own turn to vote for speaker, there was a little confusion at first. she did not realize right away that it was her turn. there was a lot going on, but her grand kids came in for the assist to make sure she would make her vote. pelosi officially took the oath to become speaker, she did it surrounded not only by her own grand kids, but also by the kids and grand kids of all the other lawmakers who were there in the chamber today, all of whom she invited up to the dais with her when she called the 116th

congress to order for the first time today, saying she was doing so on behalf of all of america's children, her granddaughter gave her a kiss at the moment that she officially took back the gavel. what happened today is something that a lot of people thought as recently as a year ago or less than a year ago might be mathematically impossible because the house has been so gerrymandered in terms of congressional districts to ensure an almost unassailable republican advantage, and an almost locked in republican majority. also, republicans had a sizeable majority heading into this past election. not that long ago, it seemed mathematically impossible for the democrats to take back the house. but the democrats blew through those perceived constraints at a thousand miles an hour in this past election. they needed to felipe couple dozen seats in order to win the speakership and win the majority. no one knew until the very last minute if they would be able to do it at all. they ended up blowing past that

and flipping 40 seats, more than they flipped in any election since watergate. and so now today, power has been peacefully transferred. this is what it boils down to. >> the tellers agree in their tallies that the total number of votes cast is 430, of which the honorable nancy pelosi of the state of california has received 220. [ cheers and applause ] >> the applause at that point went on for two minutes. before they announced the runners up, the other people who received votes for speakership today behind nancy pelosi as she secured her place in history today. in terms of getting to work today, the dynamics and the activism, the shoe leather work that got these members of congress to this moment in the

first place, those things are still at work right now across the country. in connecticut today, members of the local indivisible group, they showed up with doughnuts and coffee at the office of democratic congressman john larson. they ended up meeting with him by phone for about 50 minutes. in los angeles, indivisible activists dropped by maxine waters' office leaving a message she should not give $1 for the president's southern border wall. in irving, texas, indivisible members were out in the rain to tell republican congressman kenny marshawn they are aiming to flip his seat in 2020. they're saying, whose house? our house. in bar harbor, maine, it was 29 degrees today and snowing. the indivisible team there made a stand in the snow. also in maine because freshman republican congressman jim haga dorn is not set in office yet. his constituents didn't have a place to send him letters so they literally made him a mailbox so they could drop off the mail they have prepared for him. that's the way indivisible

works. we have covered them over this very fascinating past couple of years in democratic and progressive politics. the principle behind the indivisible movement is that you talk to your own member of congress, your own representati representative regardless of whether your person is someone you agree with or disagree with. that basic operating principle has meant indivisible groups across the country have put pretty persistent and creative pressure on democratic and republican offices all around the country, especially targeting district offices of incumbent members, right? well, indivisible turned to the pressure on again today, hitting all of these district offices of democratic members and republican members. the only difference is this time they are pushing in the context of a democratic majority. and this time they are pushing not for democrats to stay on defense, but a hard line on defense against what the republicans and the trump white house might want to do. this time they are pushing for the democrats to be on offense on policy.

the new democratic majority will hold the nation's first hearings on the idea of medicare for all. you can see evidence of pressure on that account today as well. a reporter with think progress today followed supporters of medicare for all as they showed up, too, at the capitol hill offices, freshmen members of congress who had run saying they support medicare for all. now activists will hold them to it. ayanna presley of massachusetts. with they showed up last year in support of the affordable care act, they were escorted out by police. this time, new day. they were welcomed in. congresswoman ayanna presley's staff telling these activists today to, quote, please count us as allies. so, things changed. but then other changes follow, and i think in this era of democratic and progressive policy, you will see the

pressure continue. now that democrats are in control, it just means they'll be feeling the pressure, too, from some of the same activist ands base voters and organizers who got them there. as of today, democrats officially control the house. they are that much in power. one half of congress, which, of course, is necessary, but not sufficient to get policy passed. but in addition to the question of democrats and policy, it was also an intriguing development today on the issue of democrats and oversight, which, of course, is the other great responsibility and opportunity that the democrats earn with this new majority. a couple of weeks ago, the top democrat on the house judiciary committee, the man in line to be the new chairman of the house judiciary committee, he took objection to the conventional wisdom that a sitting president can't be indicted. congressman jerry nadler of new york is now chair of the judiciary committee, and he is openly saying that he does not

believe the justice department internal guidance, which says that a sitting president should be considered immune from prosecution. now, whether those internal justice department legal memos from the 1970s and from 2000 -- whether or not those olc memos about the possibility of indicting a president, whether or not those are binding, whether those would stand any sort of real test has been hotly debated by lawyers and constitutional scholars as the scandal surrounding this president have achieved unprecedented heights and levels of concern. two weeks ago on this show, congressman nadler raised eyebrows when he laid down that marker, though. he called that internal justice guidance, he called it a deeply unamerican decision. he said on this show, no one should be above the law. and if the framers of the constitution had wanted to make the president immune from indictment, they would have said so in the constitution. he said that to us here on this show a couple of weeks ago.

that is the head of the judiciary saying that. and that -- i mean, well, we'll find out eventually. but to my mind, that means don't give up on the possibility of the potential indictment of the president by prosecutors, or the special counsel. don't necessarily focus only on the possibility of impeachment by jerry nadler's house judiciary, leave your mind open to the possibility of indictment as well. now, whether or not as a legal matter that is a bluff, whether or not that is something they are going to pursue as a matter of policy or with hearings, whether or not that is something they are going to pursue somehow with the justice department, or whether or not this is a political stand that they are taking on this issue, that is an important marker that has been laid down already by that really important member of congress. it's really important to know jerry nadler thinks that if you're considering the potential fate of this president over these next couple of years.

but now today, chairman nadler got some very important company in making that provocative argument. >> do you believe the special counsel should honor and observe the department of justice guidance that states a sitting president cannot be indicted? >> i do not think that that is a conclusive, no, i do not. >> so you think it's possible that special counsel mueller could legally indict a sitting president? >> let's just see what mueller does. >> can robert mueller come back and say, i am seeking -- >> i think that that is an a open discussion. i think that is an open discussion in terms of the law. >> i think that is an open discussion in terms of the law. i do not believe that that justice department guidance is conclusive. so first the new democratic chairman of the house judiciary committee, and now the newly elected democratic speaker of the house are signalling, do not rule out an indictment for the president. that could have really big

consequence for the whole question of whether or not democrats would ever take up impeachment, or whether they will work to keep the focus on federal prosecutors or the special counsel when it comes to the president's accountability for the various scandals that surround him and the entities that bear his name. so we're going to be talking in days and weeks ahead, i am sure, about this decision by house democratic leaders to start making this point about the potential indictability of a president. but they definitely stuck a flag in that pointed to. day one of the new congress, and that is going to end up being really important down the road. that said, there's stuff to get to before then in the very short term, democrats' first priority is to try to reopen the federal government. tonight speaker pelosi held a press conference in which she called the president's proposed wall on the southern border an immorality. she said it is not who we are as a nation. the speaker said, quote, the president cannot hold public employees hostage because he wants to have a wall. this is a live look at the

florida house -- at the floor of the house of representatives. current fending levels, president trump has vowed to veto any measures that do not contain funding for a physical war on the southern border. democrats are now holding votes. democrats are holding these votes. we will see what nancy pelosi is able to pull off in terms of what she is able to pass through the house. her past record of legislative achievement as you heard hakeem jeffries say there, he was putting her name forward for nomination, her past record is a person rg as a leather and legislative leader is somebody who can count votes exactly and who is not embarrassed by her own caucus who can bring things forward on her own say so, knowing exactly how they will go because she understands her caucus. when she puts things forward in public. we will see that in action now again with nancy pelosi as speaker. that said, she cannot control the senate, and mitch mcconnell has never been inclined to put forward anything that would put donald trump in any sort of a spot.

and so, a new era begins with democratic control of the house. as of today, they will have to show what they can do for the people and the activists who helped put them back in power, despite amazing odds against them. they will also be looking to see what they can deliver for our country that wants to know if democrats holding half of congress can change this country, can change washington even, at all. more on that next. (mom) is that for me? (dad) mhm. aaaah! (mom) nooooo... (dad) nooooo... (son) nooooo... (avo) quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand. [son loudly clears throat] [mom sighs] [mom and dad laugh] (avo) bounty, the quicker picker upper.

as the democrats had their big day swearing in nancy pelosi as speaker of the house and taking control of the house of representatives today, the president today did his best to try to seize back the spotlight when he pulled this sort of unusual stunt. he declared a surprise press briefing that he himself would conduct in the white house briefing room today for the first time ever. this was not, in fact, a press briefing despite that announcement from the white house because the president took no questions from the assembled press. he just talked and left. it's not a press briefing if the press is just there as an audience. still, though, now that the democrats have seized back partial control in washington and a lot of the press attention that goes with that, it is going to be interesting to see how the president tries to keep control of the narrative and tries to make sure that he's the center of all of the attention, that he's the thing that which all

news cameras must be pointed at at all times. yesterday we saw that with his sort of cabinet meeting where a normal president might have been expected to invite in cameras to shoot a spray of the room as the president convened a cabinet meeting, some initial talks off the top. a normal president would kick reporters out so the work of the cabinet, the substance of the meeting could take place behind closed doors. instead what president trump did yesterday was invite cameras in to stay the whole time while he invited each of his, mostly acting secretaries, one after the other, to say nice things to him. and then he just sort of talked for like an hour and a half with the cameras there for the whole time, for the whole time. it was like an endurance test for the camera crews. and nobody is quite sure what the point of that was, other than to keep those camera crews from potentially being otherwise occupied with other people in washington who are not named donald trump.

but here is something maybe important that happened at that otherwise surreal and sort of meaningless exercise with the cabinet meeting -- would-be cabinet meeting which instead was him talking in front of the press. we mentioned this on the show last night, that there was an odd topic that the president raised at that all-for-show cabinet meeting. it was not only a topic that was not expected to be a topic of conversation. it was something that appeared to take everybody in the room by surprise when the president went there out of the blue. i mentioned it on last night's show. we need to update that story. what last night seemed like an odd riff by the president turns out to have been maybe something more worrying, maybe worrying to the point where the democratic congress might end up taking a look at this. here's where the story starts. right after the president was inaugurated, but 2 1/2 weeks into the new trump administration, there was a lot that was going wrong already, particularly on issues of foreign policy and international

relations and national security stuff. there was that gigantic mess over the supposed muslim ban, lots of breaking of protocol and screwing things up, including very awkward calls and missed calls with leaders of countries that are supposed to be our closest allies. the white house doing really dumb and insulting stuff getting the names wrong of foreign leaders, even our supposed best friends, they were getting their names wrong. but just 2 1/2 weeks into the new administration, the associated press published this story which rounded up some of the bad news about all those things being screwed up and mishandled in the young administration. and at the very end of that story, they tacked on a specific detail, which was a little bit like one of these things is not like the others? but the thing they tacked on at the end of the story didn't seem like a mistake, didn't seem like a screw up or typo. it seemed like a point of intrigue. the a.p. reported this just 2 1/2 weeks into the trump administration. quote, according to one u.s.

official, trump administration national security aides have sought information about polish incursions in belarus. an eyebrow raising request because little evidence of such activities appears to exist. and i remember 2 1/2 weeks into the trump administration, i was up in boston, i think, see how the background looks different? i'm not in the normal studio. it's 2 1/2 weeks in the administration. i remember doing this big long segment that night on this show trying to raise a red flag about how worrying that line was from that associated precipice, right? even though that seemed like some sort of arcane national security matter about countries we don't think about that much. the reason that leapt out at me at the time as so strange and potentially very worrying is because the only people in the whole world who were saying at that time that there was any risk that -- what was it? that poland might invade belarus, the only people in the

whole world who were saying that was a potential problem, that people ought to look out for, the only people who were talking about that as a possibility were vladimir putin's government. putin's government at that time was running a military intelligence disinformation campaign to try to mess with belarus by convincing belarus that poland was about to invade them. this is not something that was a real threat. this was not something that was a real potential. poland really wasn't going to do that. it wasn't something that was of concern to anybody in the western world. most particularly not the brand-new trump administration who literally didn't know that the prime minister of britain has the first name teresa. they honestly couldn't figure out if taiwan and china were the same thing. but they knew to be worried about the possibility of poland invading belarus? that was a made-up thing. that vladimir putin was pushing as part of an information warfare offensive against a country that russia wanted in its orbit. absolutely obscure, and, in fact, made-up.

anywhere outside of putin's immediate propaganda orbit, and that is something that senior level trump national security aides took up at the highest level within the first two weeks of them arriving at the white house? like as one of the major things america needed to have on its radar in the world? it was such a weirdly revealing and worrying moment. it was like -- do you remember during the republican primary when trump started telling reporters he'd seen information, pretty good proof, that ted cruz's dad assassinated jfk. do you remember that moment? on the one hand, it was oh, my god, i can't believe he just said that about ted cruz. or ted cruz's dad, or jfk. but, on the other hand, it was like, oh, this is the proof we needed that donald trump reads the national enquirer and believes the things in it are true, because that's where that story came from. this belarus poland thing that senior national security

administration officials were apparently trying to track down in the first two weeks of the trump administration, what they were trying to track down was something that was completely foreign to and external to the united states in every way. it was only a russian propaganda campaign. it wasn't a real thing. how did they even know that propaganda campaign existed? so, that was an early sign. that was 2 1/2 weeks into this administration. that was kind of the first -- the hole in a nine-hole golf course. things like this have happened numerous times now. there was another weird moment we had as a country last summer where, again, the president brought up something super obscure and utterly foreign to all american political discourse when he volunteered to the fox news channel that the people of montenegro -- where? montenegro -- stay with me here. president trump volunteered to the fox news channel last summer that the people of montenegro are an unusually aggressive

people, and we should fear that they might start world war 3. the montenegrans. couldn't possibly say the name of that country without embarrassingly mispronouncing it. i swear -- he absolutely did this. >> montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people. by the way, they're very strong people. they ha they're very aggressive people. they may get aggressive. congratulations, you're in world war 3. >> where did that come from? i mean, ask yourself in your heart of hearts, do you believe that president donald trump has such a nuanced understanding that he has detailed heart felt opinions about the innate characteristics of the specific indivisible populations of each of the balkan states so he can drop into conversation casually the inherent national characteristics of the macedonians versus the

montenegros and the albanians he could talk about. it's roughly the size of connecticut. a population well under a million people. one thing you might know about montenegro in 2016, there was almost a coup in that tiny country the same day that country was holding a parliamentary election, the coup ploters planned to storm the building where everybody was voting. they planned to arrest the prime minister if they couldn't arrest and capture the prime minister, they planned to kill him. that was their plan. but a few days before that coup was supposed to kickoff, one of the people who was supposed to be part of it got cold feet, turned himself into authorities. that's how we know what the coup plan consisted of. montenegro arrested more than a dozen people in an alleged plot to overthrow the government and assassinate the prime minister. as a result of the foiled coup,

how that prime minister almost got himself murdered, we got to know quite a lot about how that plot came together. what montenegro ultimately discovered was it wasn't just a random group of upstarts who one day decided they were going to grab a bunch of guns and take over the montenegro parliament and kill the prime minister. what they discovered was that this whole coup effort had been backed by russian military intelligence. the coup ploters were allegedly recruit and had funded by russian military intelligence by the g.r.u.. and russia's apparent goal in supporting that coup was to stop montenegro from deciding to join nato. russia is fixated on nato. they do not want nato any bigger than it is. russia sees nato as its main military adversary in the world. they want nato dismantled. they certainly don't want it to add any new members. we have since learned more about how in addition to russian military intelligence trying to

foment a coup in montenegro, russian oligarchs close to the kremlin funded pro-russian political opposition in that country in an effort to block them from deciding to join nato. but the coup failed. montenegro did ultimately decide to join nato and the montenegro prime minister was not assassinated. he got to go to the first nato summit in 2017. he was obviously stoked to be there as you can see from the look on his face there. i will interject something right now. if you are washing dishes or grooming the dog or doing something else while you are listening to this and you're not actually looking at the tv, you may want to look up at the tv for this tape. at the first nato summit with the new montenegro prime minister, this is what our new american president did to him. watch. watch trump. what did he do? he literally shoved the prime minister of montenegro -- watch

again -- shoved him out of the way on the main stage at the nato summit. welcome to nato. get out of my way! he grabs him and shoves him behind himself. that was a super weird moment for our new president. what the heck does he care about this guy from montenegro? why does he push him and not any of the other guys? what has he got against montenegro? that summer the same american president volunteers to fox news montenegro is a nation of people that's going to start world war 3. it was a bizarre out of the blue thing for this american president to say. and i mean that in a specific sense. calling montenegro and montenegrans is not part of american foreign policy, the liberal foreign poling si, the moon is made of green cheese foreign policy. he is not reading that in the briefing books no matter who is writing them. he is not hearing that from anybody in the american congress. his advisors are not whispering in his ear about the aggressive

montenegrans. the only place on earth pushing any sort of line like that, that montenegro is unusually aggressive and start world war 3 if they're allow today join nato, the only place on earth articulating that is the kremlin under vladimir putin. i mean, where did he get that from, right? who planted that in his ear? poland is going to invade belarus? no, they're not. putin made that up. montenegro is unusually aggressive, they're going to start a war if they join nato? no, they're not. putin made that up. where is he heerk this stuffer? we've seen this a few times now over the trump administration. now it has just happened again. that's next. shield℠ annuities from brighthouse financial

allow you to take advantage of growth opportunities with a level of protection in down markets. so you can be less concerned about your retirement savings. talk with your advisor about shield℠ annuities from brighthouse financial, established by metlife.

this is the thing that happened, just tell me why you think this happened. the president yesterday in front of the assembled cameras in the cabinet room, he volunteered to the assembled press and to the somewhat bewhich will derred members of his cabinet, he believed it was a good thing that the soviet union invaded afghanistan back in 1979. his exact quotes on the subject were, quote, they were right to be there. meaning the soviet union was right to invade afghanistan. he said, quote, the reason russia was in afghanistan was terrorists were going into russia. that is what the president said yesterday in the cabinet room. and you may not care at all why

the soviet union invaded afghanistan in 1979. that is fine. but the president randomly volunteering that analytical take on that matter yesterday ought to pique your interest because that view does not exist in nature in this country. no one -- no liberal, no conservative, no contrary out of the box foreign policy thinker -- nobody holds the belief in american politics, in american academia, in american fantasy foot ball chat rooms -- i spent the day looking. this is not a live issue anywhere in u.s. politics. it is not a live issue among weird conservative fringe media figures that you might not know about that the president might love. there is no fox pay per view podcast where judge janine sits around in the studio with other pals cooking up revisionist history justifications about why soviet special operators needed to raid the presidential palace

in kabul in christmas in 1979. nobody thinks russia invading afghanistan in 1979 was a good move. yeah, they had to do that because of the terrorism. it's not what happened. and there is nowhere in america -- nowhere where president trump might have picked up this idea. but there is one place not in america. next month, the united russia party, which is the party of russian president vladimir putin, that party will sponsor an official resolution to rehabilitate this infamous part of the history of the soviet union. they will introduce a resolution to make the soviet invasion of afghanistan retroactively no longer a mistake. this new resolution on the 30th anniversary of the withdrawal of afghan -- excuse me, of soviet troops from afghanistan will call the invasion justified, looking back at it now, because of the threat of terrorism.

i mean, that is the only place in nature where that idea even exists. president putin's party and the communist party in russia who are jointly supporting that resolution to rehabilitate the whole idea of the soviet union waging a war in afghanistan. that's the only place in nature that idea exists, in the kremlin. and it just came out of our president's mouth in this country, in the cabinet room, where he brought it up unprompted, apropos of nothing. where is the president getting this stuff? it is possible that, contrary to popular perceptions, he is a wide-reaching reader of what you and i might think of as obscure or even picayum history maybe. or someone is stove piping this stuff into the president's ears so it pops out of his mouth in unexpected times.

what do we do with that? joining us now is michael mcfaul, former ambassador to russia. it is a real pleasure to have you here. thank you for being here. >> thanks for having me. happy new year. >> happy new year. you are a russian expert, i am not. it is my perception as i just explained that the view that the soviet union had to invade afghanistan because there was a threat of terrorism and it was actually a good move, it is my perception that that is an idea that doesn't exist in nature in the united states, that there isn't anybody who espouses that view. is that true? >> to the best of my knowledge, rachel, that is correct. but i have to say what an incredible team you have to have found where it does exist in nature, because i didn't know what you just reported about, the russia resolution coming. that is some incredible investigative work. congratulations to your team. >> it's not me. let me give credit where credit is due there. >> where did you find that? >> jonathan in the new york magazine wrote about this

because vladimir, soviet dissident who almost died being a dissident in putin's russia, he wrote a piece about it in the first week of december for the washington post's world politics section saying, hey, you should know russia is trying to revise this part of history. jonathan shea picked it up. steve picked it up for our staff and that's the reason i'm able to bring it. that shows you just how obscure it is. it's not the sort of thing the president would stumble upon in his everyday reading. >> of course. i mean, of course -- i mean, it's remarkable. i mean, just to be clear, everything he said was false about what happened in causally at this, the soviets did not invade afghanistan to stop terrorism. as an educator it embarrasses me when i hear the president say things like that. but to your point, it is striking that he does pick up on these very strange ideas in conversations with leaders, most

certainly vladimir putin. i know, because i remember an idea putin floated to him last july. he said wouldn't it be a great idea to interrogate a bunch of americans in response to who -- the mueller indictment, if you remember that story, and, you know, president trump came out and said that's a great idea. so, there's a pattern hereof him picking up these very strange ideas from people like putin and then stating them as if they're facts. >> and you were one of the americans who president putin thought he should be allowed to interrogate. >> that one i caught. that one caught my attention, believe me. >> does this happen with other presidents? is this not that unusual? obviously world leaders do have conversations. they meet at summits. they have phone conversations maybe that we don't necessarily know about. presumably there are leader to leader conversations where these things might be picked up. to me it is striking because i feel there have been a number of iterations now where the president has volunteered something, injected something into the american bloodstream

that no other american would ever articulate. and it seems to only make sense in a sort of russian mind-set, in a kremlin mind-set. have you ever seen this with any other president? >> no. i mean, i've worked for one president for five years. i worked at the white house for president obama. sometimes there were strange things said, but, of course, somebody like president obama would then ask his staff. he would ask somebody like me about the validity of this. so, you know, there's two things i think are striking here. one, that other leaders have figured out this is a way to work with president trump. you know, the pull out of syria allegedly is through a phone call that he had with president erdogan. but secondly, where is the staff? where is john bolton? john bolton knows that that's not true. why is he not pushing that stuff aside? why isn't there better staffing for the president so that he doesn't say things that are just factually untrue? i think we need to wonder about what kind of process is going on

within the white house as well. >> wonder fg that staff will ever have to give us the american people the account of the ex parte communications with the president that other leaders are having. >> exactly. >> michael mcfaul, thank you for joining us tonight. >> thanks for having me. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. stay with us nobody likes dealing with insurance. see, esurance knows it's confusing. i literally have no idea what i'm getting. i don't know either. i'm just the spokesperson. but that's why they're making it simple - so that even actors, like us, can understand it. i'm not an actor. i'd love to tell you more but i only have thirty seconds. so here's a dramatic shot of their tagline so you'll remember it. when insurance is simple, it's surprisingly painless.

let me be clear, house democrats are down with n.d.p.

nancy de la sandro pelosi, the once and future speaker of the united states house of representatives. i proudly place her name and nomination. may god bless her. may god bless the united states of america. [ applause ] >> that was the get up off your seat, get up on your feet crescendo ending to congressman hakeem jeffries, formally nominating nancy pelosi to be speaker of the house today. congressman jeffries is himself number five and house democratic leadership now for this new congress. he's been elected chairman of the house democratic caucus and congressman jeffries joins us live from capitol hill tonight. sir, thank you so much for your time. i know this is a very busy night. >> good evening. great to be on with you. >> first i have to get to the urgent business. you have to go vote in a second. can you tell us what's happening now with the votes to try to reopen the government? >> we successfully passed a continuing resolution to fund the department of homeland security through february 8th. that vote passed with four or

five republicans actually joining democrats in a bipartisan way to do that, which was a very positive step forward. and currently, we have successfully reached the 218 number in terms of passing the other six bipartisan appropriations bills that would reopen the government with respect to all the other departments aside from the department of homeland security, and so we expect that in short order that vote will close, and we'll send that bill as well over to the senate where hopefully they will act. >> in terms of that hopefulness, senator mcconnell has not signalled he is likely to act on these bills, saying the president won't sign these bills because they don't have funding for the president's southern border wall. and if the president isn't going to sign these bills, then senator mcconnell won't take them up. what's your take on that? >> well, here's the thing. the house and the senate are separate and co-equal branches of government. the senate is not a wholly-owned

subsidiary of the trump administration and it shouldn't function as such. and the bills that we're sending over to the senate are bills that they themselves have already signed off on in terms of adequate funding for the departments that are currently closed. we need to reopen the government, and then we can work out the issues that exist as it relates to border security and our broken immigration system, but we should not hold 800,000 federal workers hostage because donald trump wants to build a medieval border wall that will be ineffective. it's a 5th century solution to a 21st century problem. >> congressman hakeem jeffries, i know that you are squeezed right now and you have to go vote so i'm going to let you go. but not without a promise that you'll come back soon to talk about your plans for the new congress, sir. >> it will be an honor to do so, and thank you for all that you do, rachel. >> i appreciate it. thank you very much, sir. congressman hakeem jeffries. as i mentioned, has a new leadership role in the new

house. he'll be number five of the democratic caucus. he brought the house to its feed today putting nancy pelosi's name in nomination to be speaker. we have one more really good story to get to tonight on this big night in the news. stay with us. h us work... and after work. he does it all with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort. to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move.

allow you to take advantage of growth opportunities with a level of protection in down markets. so you can be less concerned about your retirement savings. talk with your advisor about shield℠ annuities from brighthouse financial, established by metlife.

a third of the senate runs in the midterm election so about a third of our nation's u.s. senators got sworn in today in batches of four on the senate floor. then afterwards they pose one on one for a reenactment with the

vice-president. so at the ceremonial swearing in, that's where you get the picture with the vp and your family members. that led to a kind of amazing moment with arizona's new democratic senior senator today, kyrsten sinema. just watch this. >> what is this? >> why don't you stand -- >> can we get a spouse? just kidding. >> can we get a spouse? senator kyrsten sinema, incidentally, the first open buy sexual u.s. senator in u.s. history. she was sworn in office today with her hand on a law book containing the constitutions of the united states and home of arizona. mike pence had to smile to the cameras through all of it. absolutely priceless. and if i can get comfortable keeping this tookus safe and protected... you can get comfortable doing the same with yours. preparation h. get comfortable with it.

our because of smoking.ital. but we still had to have a cigarette. had to. but then, we were like. what are we doing? the nicodermcq patch helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. nicodermcq. you know why, we know how. just in the last few moments, the votes have officially closed. so now we can say that as the first two official acts of business in the new

democratic-led house of representatives, the house has passed two bills to reopen the federal government without funding for a wall on the southern border. your move, republican senate. that does it for us word" with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening, rachel. and the fascinating detail within those votes that i'm looking at now is that seven republicans in the house of representatives voted for the package of funding bills that nancy pelosi put together that had nothing to do with the border wall. and five republicans voted for the other bill that would temporarily extend funding for the department of homeland security without a border wall. so there's five republicans in the house of representatives tonight who were perfectly happy to not only go without the wall but vote in effect against the wall very specifically tonight. >> yes, and as hakeem jeffries just said live on-air just moments ago, as these bills now head to the senate what the house has sent to the senate are two bills that the senate has