or you can get creative. hold a garage sale, a potluck, treat a government employee and their family to a meal. as we hit midnight and day 28 of the nation's longest ever government shutdown, this is our broadcast for tonight. i'm ali velshi in for brian williams who will be back tomorrow. thank you for being with us. and good night from new york. us. the government shutdown is in very happy to have y day 27 but winter doesn't care. looks like there will be another major storm arriving in the next few days. this one looks like it's going to hit the northeast this weekend. i know that, i feel comfortable telling you that on television. i can describe elements of that. i can talk about potential places that might be hit harder than others and when these -- i can do all that. i can even factor that all into my own weekend plans this weekend because there are thousands of employees of the

national weather service who are working 24 hours a day, seven days a week to provide we the people with that very kind of valuable information. and all those eloyees of the national weather service are doing that work for free. they are doing it without being paid. hour after hour, day after day, storm after storm. yesterday you might have seen headlines about a georgia man who was arrested for planning attacks on multiple sites, including the white house. you should know that the fbi agents who got that guy and arrested him yesterday, those fbi agents are also working without pay. we learned tonight that at the new york city offices of the fbi they have started a food bank, as of today, for fbi agents and their families because you can only work so long without pay before you really do need to turn to charity in order to eat. and as of today, we are now having ping-ponging fights in washington about what the president is personally able to

do during the shutdown and what congressional leadership is personally able to do during the shutdown. we still have no clarity on whether or not there will be a state of the union address this year. there's never been one before while the government was shut down. nancy pelosi, speaker of the house, says as a matter of security they cannot responsibly bring the president to a joint session of congress to issue such an address this year, not while the government is shut down, not while so many of the personnel w.h.o. would already be involved in the planning for a security event of that significance, so many of them are not working at all right now or, again, they are working without pay. in response to that potential cancellation or rescheduling of the state of the union, which pelosi suggested to the white house yesterday, the president today decided he would cancel the military transport for a congressional delegation that nancy pelosi was set to join to visit u.s. troops in afghanistan. now, the defense department, military transportation for a congressional delegation, that's not actually affected by the shutdown, but the president

decided he wanted to do that anyway to smack her back about the state of the union or something. and because he wanted to make as big a deal as possible about him cancelling that military transportation, the president also today publicly disclosed for the if ifirst time that tha trip was supposed to happen, which means even if nancy pelosi and other members of congress did find alternative means of transportation to go take that congressional delegation to go visit troops in afghanistan, they now, of course, cannot. for security reasons. because the president blew that up. there's a reason when high-ranking american officials are flying into an active war zone we don't find out about it until they're already there. it's for their own safety. the president blew that up today and told nancy pelosi she should fly commercial anyway. and whether or not you care where the president or whether any other political leaders are personally spending their days while the shutdown persists, it

is now increasingly bizarre and just, i mean, it's more than remarkable, it is bizarre that the trump administration with each passing day now, they really are expecting hundreds of thousands of federal employees to show up to work all day long without being paid. and that is something that federal workers have been able to do for a few days here and there when we have had shutdowns here and there in the past, but we've never had a shutdown this long and showing up and working without pay is only sustainable for so long. how long could you sustain that in your family? i mean, it's only sustainable practically for so many days. it may not be sustainable legally for all that much longer either. and politically it's hard to see how the president and the administration more broadly are going to be able to sustain this expectation that hundreds of thousands of americans will work without pay. it's hard to see how they will

be able to sustain that politically when the cost is now so blunt and so human and each passing day of this just makes it that much worse. >> we're not paying people to keep us safe, the tsa agents who stop bombs from coming on to planes, the fbi agents who tracked -- who track down terrorists in our country. the dea agents who stop the flow of drugs into our country and the officials who patrol the border. people think of public employees, federal employees only being in the washington area. no, they're all over the country. they're in small town usa and other places around the country. i don't understand why the reality of this in people's lives isn't -- is not felt or concerned or cared about by the administration. not only are these workers not paid, they're not appreciated by this administration. these are the people who deliver

services to the american people. we should respect what they do for our country. we're saying let's get a date when government is open. let's pay the employees. maybe he thinks it's okay not to pay people who do work. i don't. and my caucus doesn't either. >> house speaker nancy pelosi speaking with reporters today, and i am not a political expert. ask me about some of my past political predictions. i'm not great at it. i am not a great political expert. i have never run for office. i never would. i have never been part of a campaign of anybody else running for office, but it strikes me, in political terms, that if you have picked a big political argument and in so doing you have put your political opponent in the position of arguing against you that it's their position that people who work should be paid for their work, if that's their position against

you, that seems to me like maybe you're going to lose that fight. i mean, honestly, if you think about what's going on right now with the shutdown, logistically i don't know how they're going to end it. politically, what this boils down to right now is that the way the president has set this up is that he's put the democrats in the position of being able to make two cases to the public. the democrats have two public positions right now in this fight with the white house. they have two points. let's open the government and if people work they should be paid. the trump administration and now the republicans in congress are in the position now of saying, okay, we get that you want to open the government, but -- okay, but, yeah -- and we understand that people should be paid, but, you know, there's this other stuff that we also need to -- there's other factors here that you need to -- i mean, the polling is increasingly terrible for the president and the republicans on this issue with each passing day. it started off bad for them.

it's getting worse as this thing goes on longer and causes more real human pain. that doesn't mean, though, that any of us know when it will end. certainly the politics of this are only going to get worse for those who are trying to sustain it and not better, but, again, we don't know how long they decide that they're going to keep this going. outside of the ongoing standoff for the shutdown, there were a few surprises in the news today related to the scandals swirling around this president. turns out -- this presidency. turns out that stuff doesn't -- doesn't stop for the shutdown. emily jane fox is going to be here in just a moment from "vanity fair" to talk about one of those surprises that concerns the president's longtime personal lawyer michael cohen. emily jane has some new important reporting on that story tonight, specifically about president trump potentially having some new criminal liability from yet another campaign-related revelations ala michael cohen. so emily jane fox is going to be joining us live in just a second with some of that new reporting. you are going to want to see

that. before we get to that michael cohen case, though, there's a couple of other developments you should know about today as well. one of them, i can't tell you much about what the bottom line of it -- in terms of what the bottom line in terms of what it means, but i am very intrigued by this. we have learned late this evening just before starting this show tonight that the supreme court of the united states tomorrow, the justices of the supreme court tomorrow are once again going to consider at least some part of what we now affectionately call the mystery case. this is a mystery case that appears to relate to robert mueller and the special counsel's office. high-level prosecutors working for mueller in the special counsel's office are believed to be associated with this case. i have to couch it like that, though, because all the filings, all the argument in this case, they've all been conducted under seal so i can't just show you something that proves that. the parties in this case are secret. the lawyers involved in this case, it's all secret. and even with the supreme court

apparently considering an element of this case tomorrow, we're still not exactly sure what aspect of the case supreme court justices are going to be looking at. i mean, broadly speaking we know from previous court filings that this appears to be a case involving an unnamed corporation. "the washington post" believes it is a financial institution of some kind, but who knows. from court filings we can tell this unnamed corporation that's maybe a financial institution. it's definitely owned by a foreign country but we don't know which country. it's just country "a" in the filings. a federal court has previously ruled that this mysterious foreign-owned corporation can't ignore a subpoena that they received. and it appears to be a subpoena they received from the special counsel's office. lower court ruled that this company has to respond to that subpoena. that court also imposed a $50,000 a day penalty on that corporation for every day that they refuse to comply with the subpoena. that's got to be adding up.

well, some element of that mystery case is going to be considered in conference by the justices of the u.s. supreme court tomorrow. so in conference means it's not going to happen in open court where you get to see the lawyers arguing back and forth, this just going to be the justices behind closed doors deciding amongst themselves, but i'm intrigued. it's funny, everything about this case has seemed like it must be of outsized importance just because it's secret. it may end up being a small thing. it may end up being mundane, but all i can tell you is something about it is being adjudicated tomorrow at the very highest levels of the u.s. judiciary. the supreme court is taking it up and we still will not know about it until somebody finally decides if and when this can all be unsealed. we also had another surprise announcement today from the justice department about a big fancy expensive well-regarded law firm, one of the biggest and richest law firms on earth.

and they've just gotten in trouble for their role in the russia scandal and its various criminal offshoots. do you remember the guy alex vand vand vander zwaan, he pled guilty lying to federal investigators about his work with paul manafort. alex van der zwaan has not only pled guilty to a felony, he's been sentenced to prison. he's already completed his prison sentence and gone home to europe. when he turned up in federal court in washington, a couple things interesting, not just about his case but who he is. first of all, it turns out that he's the son-in-law, he's married to the daughter of a russian billionaire. one of the billionaire owners of alpha bank. alpha bank is not a state-owned russian bank. it's the biggest bank in russia, i think, that's not state-run,

although there has been some noise quite recently that the kremlin might take over alpha bank. the owners of alpha bank have turned up numerous times on the periphery of the russia scandal involving president trump and his campaign. for one, they're mentioned in the christopher steele dossier that's been such a controversial part of the anecdotes and allegations around potential collusion between the trump campaign and russia during the 2016 election. the alpha bank owners are currently involved in a legal dispute with fusion gps over their being named in steele's dossier. alpha bank has also turned up on the periphery of the scandal because computer servers associated with alpha bank were reportedly observed during the summer of 2016 having lots and lots of unexplained online communications with computer servers for the trump organization. why would computers at the president's business in trump tower be communicating repeatedly with computers owned

by a russian bank during the campaign? we still have no idea, but that was alpha bank, and one of the billionaire owners of alpha bank is this guy, herman cannekhan, her man khan's son-in-law is handsome alex van der zwaan who just got out of prison for his role in lying to investigators about the work he did for paul manafort. so when alex van der zwaan turned up in court, that was a strange biographical detail we learned about him. maybe that's a coincidence, a hairpin turn into the space time continuum. the other thing that was interesting about alex van der zwaan when he turned up in court was not just his odd family connection, but also the firm where he worked because when alex van der zwaan got in trouble for the stuff he got in trouble for, he was a relatively junior lawyer at a super fancy white shoe law firm. his supervisor, the senior

partner who oversaw his work at skadden arps, his supervisor, the senior partner over him was a very famous, very well-connected american lawyer named gregory craig. who was a former obama white house official. greg craig worked in the obama white house at the very outset of obama's first term in office. he was obama's first white house counsel. well, alex van der zwaan no longer works at skadden arps. gregory craig is no longer a partner at the firm, he left in april. but today, surprise, the justice department revealed a multimillion dollar civil settlement between the justice department and that very fancy law firm, skadden arps. the firm agrees to retroactively register as an unregistered foreign agent working on behalf

of ukraine, the pro-russian government of ukraine that paul manafort represented. the firm has also agreed to pay back to the u.s. government the more than $4 million paul manafort allegedly secretly shovelled to them so they would do work that looked like the independent work product of this very prestigious western law firm while what they were really doing was just whyitewash work for manafort's pro-russian clients. there are a few things that are interesting about this. number one, this is a surprise. i didn't know this was coming. also, big prestigious rich connected american law firms like this one don't usually get in trouble for anything. let alone for grotty criminal foreign corruption cases like this one. seeing skadden arps in this justice department settlement in itself is a remarkable thing. that said, what they're getting from the justice department in this settlement financially doesn't even qualify as a slap on the wrist. i mean, skadden is such a

gigantic rich law firm, "the wall street journal" said today that their annual revenue as a law firm is something like $2.5 billion in revenue every year now. 2.5 billion a year. them having to pay the government pack $4.6 million, that's like a freckle on a flea to them. that is not even a rounding error for them. they will not even feel that in one day's billings. and we should also note that the money they are paying back apparently according to prosecutors, that 4.6 million they got to pay back, yeah, they have to pay it to the government, but that's just the money they received to do this illegal foreign lobbying work. that's just the money they got secretly shovelled from paul manafort. so that means all the justice department is requiring them is that they don't keep the illegal money they got, but they don't have to pay anything on top of that. this is like if you were caught going 100 miles an hour in a school zone the cop was like, whoa, you were 80 miles an hour

over the speed limit. this is a school zone. it's 20. you didn't see the flashing yellows? what are you doing? it turns out your punishment for having done that is that you have to slow down. you are no longer allowed to go 100 miles an hour in a school zone and you pledge that you won't anymore, but other than that, you're free to go. aren't you ashamed? right? that's the equivalent of what happened here to this rich influential politically-connected law firm. i mean, skadden technically gets in trouble. ooh, embarrassing press release. they have to retroactively register as a foreign agent, but they otherwise sort of get off scott free for what they did. that said, the justice department does praise them for their cooperation in this matter, so maybe they're helping with something else. also, this may not be the end. this civil settlement between the justice department and this rich law firm today, it doesn't resolve anything other than the conflict between the firm and

the government. it doesn't resolve any related allegations that may arise under -- about any individuals. greg craig himself, the former obama white house lawyer, obama's first white house counsel, he appears to play a starring role in what is described in the settlement today as the firm's misconduct. he or somebody who is described as partner one, who appears to be gregory craig, is repeatedly described in this settlement as having made false and misleading statements to justice department investigators who were looking into what was going on here, who were looking into whether or not this firm was engaged in illegal lobbying with paul manafort. so there have been previous public reports that gregory craig is personally under potential criminal scrutiny for his individual role in this part of the manafort saga, but as of tonight we know his firm at least has settled things with the government in a way that is embarrassing but super cheap for them. it remains to be seen whether

any other shoe, white shoe or not, is about to drop. with any further indictments or any further plea agreements or, you know, cooperation deals or anything else we might hear about. and on top of that, there is the freaking unbelievably weird story about the president's longtime personal lawyer michael cohen, which broke this morning in "the wall street journal." did you see this? did you see this today? in one of the surreal things about this presidency is that no matter what else is going on, no matter what happens in any given day in the news, right, in the back of all of our minds, we all know somewhere that this president, whatever he's doing good or bad, you know, exciting or embarrassing, whatever it is, this president is also technically known as individual one in a multiple felony criminal case that's about to send his longtime personal friend and business associate to federal prison for three years. the president is individual one and was named as such by prosecutors when they brought

charges against cohen for having paid more than $250,000 in hush money trying to assure two women wouldn't go public ahead of election day with their allegations they had had affairs with the president. of all the things this president has been accused of and associated with, those hush money payments to those two women seem so small, right? so tawdry and tabloid and dumb. as something potentially quite serious to the president and the presidency, but michael cohen pled guilty to two campaign finance felonies because of those hush money payments. the president got that moniker, right? the president became individual one. he is described by prosecutors as having been the person who conspired with cohen to commit those felonies. they describe him as the person who directed the commission of those felonies and benefitted from them. nbc news has reported that had the president not been president

with all the complications that implies for a potential felony prosecution of someone holding that office, had he not been serving as president of the united states at the time that felony case came ripe, he, too, would have been charged with felonies in the cohen case. well, now there's another one. as broken this morning by "the wall street journal." by michael roth federal, rob barry and joe pal zoe low. quote, in early 2015, a man who runs a small technology company showed up at trump tower to collect $50,000 for having helped michael cohen, then donald trump's personal lawyer, try to rig online polls in his boss' favor before the presidential campaign. quote, in his trump organization office, mr. cohen surprised the man by giving him a blue walmart bag containing between $12,000 and $13,000 in cash and, comma, randomly, comma, a boxing glove that mr. cohen said had been

worn by a brazilian mixed martial arts fighter. the man in question then confirmed to "the wall street journal" in an interview that he did do what he was paid to do. he did try, quote, to manipulate online polls in trump's favor. after he was directed to do so by michael cohen and promised $50,000 for his trouble, even though he only got paid $12,000 to $13,000 plus a glove. because the news god's have a sense of humor, i should also tell you that the man currently serves as the chief information officer at liberty university, which is the teleadvantage livay falwell. this again is that perfect

trump-era crossover between i need to take a shower and i can't believe i have to read this for work. right? now we can update the cast of characters here from the "playboy" model being paid by david pecker at "the national enquirer" not to write a fitness column and the charming hilarious smart and charming adult film star with the bombastic lawyer who maybe is going to run for president, we can add the chief tech guy from televagelsit university maybe boxing member amelia as payment to try to rig drudge report polls to get trump to seem like a top-tier candidate. it's too stupid and dirty to care about, right? instinctively, that is what you are feeling, but sometimes crime is small and dirty and boring and embarrassing. i mean, after "the wall street journal" broke this story this morning, michael cohen said publicly online, "as for "the

wall street journal" article on poll rigging, what i did was at the direction of and for the sole benefit of donald trump." and embarrassing as this all is, if donald trump did not this was happening on his behalf, and if he did direct it and if he did pay michael cohen $50,000 for this service and michael cohen did turn around and pay this contractor a bag of dirty $2 bills for this service plus a boxing glove and this service was designed to increase trump's perceived public standing so he would be seen as a credible presidential candidate so this would help him in the election then, yeah, this is dirty and small and hilarious, but this is also in the same ballpark as the felony campaign finance violation that is already sending michael cohen to federal prison for three years. he starts his sentence in a few weeks. it's the kind of case for which the president has already earned the legal moniker individual number one. if this was an illegal campaign

contribution, if this was an inkind payment to aid the president's election that was not reported as such, that may not seem like the most important thing of this disgusting little story, but it may be the criminal part. and that question of whether the president was in on this, whether the president, as michael cohen says, knew about this and directed it, that may end up being a question of critical legal significance. for the president and for the presidency. and emily jane fox is going to break some news on that front here with us next. t front here with us next. greatness of an suv? is it to carry cargo... or to carry on a legacy? its show of strength... or its sign of intelligence? in crossing harsh terrain... or breaking new ground? this is the mercedes-benz suv family. greatness comes in many forms. lease the glc 300 for $479 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz.

the best or nothing. uh uh - i deliverberty the news around here. ♪ sources say liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. over to you, logo. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

ouget a 4-course mealal starting at $15.99. treat yourself to the perfect gift today, because the aussie 4-course won't last long! outback steakhouse.

aussie rules.

joining us now here on set is emily jane fox. senior reporter at "vanity fair." great to see you. thanks for being here. >> thank you. >> so the story broke in "the wall street journal" this morning that michael cohen was paid $50,000 by either mr. trump or the trump organization, i'm not sure which, for something that cohen sort of invoiced as technical services. "wall street journal," we found out that some reimbursement like that had happened. we found out during earlier

charging documents concerning mr. cohen. "wall street journal" appears to have tracked that down and figured out he was paying a guy at liberty university to rig online polls to make trump seem like a better candidate. now, does mr. cohen deny that this happened? >> no, i think he said in his tweet today -- there was no denial there. what he said very clearly today was i did this at the direction of president trump, which is what he has said about the other things that he pleaded guilty to last year, and it was the exact same language. >> mmm-hmm. >> he expressed his remorse. and i think from my reporting today, what i know is that nononly does cohen say this, but there are documents or there is a document that backs up his claim. >> there's a physical document that backs up his claim that the president was aware of this, the president directed -- >> the president was aware that this was happening. >> now, the president does not use e-mail. at least we believe. the president, we don't think, uses a computer at all. >> from all my reporting in

every reporting i've done on the president, he doesn't text, he doesn't e-mail. >> so it wouldn't have been an electronic communication. >> i don't know what the document is, but there is documentation. now, this what i will say about cohen. he has pleaded guilty to lying about things. there have been things in the past that he has lied to me as a reporter about, other reporters about, that he has lied about publicly. cohen pleaded guilty to lying to congress. that is part of the reason why he is going to prison in march. >> mmm-hmm. >> it would seem incomprehensible to me and against any better judgement for him to go to congress again and lie. he's already going to pr is fisr this. so this is the kind of thing, this document and what he is saying about the president directing him or the president's knowledge about this payment ahead of time is the exact kind of thing i'm sure he'll be asked about on february 7th when he goes to capitol hill. this is the whole reason why he's going. there are things in the mueller probe that cohen will not be allowed to talk about. there are things in that investigation that are going to be totally off the table.

this seems to me to be squarely in line with what he's going to be asked about and allowed to talk about and that's why this hearing is going to be so important. it would just be unbelievable for me to believe that cohen would go and lie to congress again about this. >> so let me just -- let me be totally clear about what we've got here. cohen has said publicly he did this at the direction of donald trump. you say that he's told you that there is a document that backs that up. >> my reporting. >> your reporting is that there is a document that backs that up. >> mmm-hmm. >> and that cohen has access to that document? >> i would -- i would assume that he has access to this document. >> do we know if this is something that he has discussed already with either the southern district of new york, which prosecuted him on the other campaign finance felonies or with the special counsel's office or with other investigators. >> here's what i do know. i know he has spent upwards of 70 hours with investigators. if there is something pertinent

to one of the cases he is involved in, he's shared it. you're not sitting in rooms with investigators twiddling your thumbs or talking about the weather. you're talking about everything you know that is relevant to those investigations. i know he wasn't an official cooperating witness in the southern district of my new york, but it was my understanding he was fairly if not fully cooperative in the investigations we have known about publicly. >> my last question for you on this. is it your impression what "the wall street journal's" describing and what cohen is not denying and what there may or may not be documentation of in terms of backing up his assertion this is at the direction of the president. is it your understanding that this is the same kind of campaign-related expenditure that may be -- may have criminal implications? >> how could it not be? it's not $130,000 to one woman. >> mmm-hmm. >> but if it is a payment that was made at the direction of president trump and potentially could have influenced the election, isn't that the exact kind of payment that cohen was

in trouble for and the exact kind of payment people have been saying for months could potentially implicate the president or individual one? it's the same thing in my mind. >> we'll see if it is ever adjudicated. there, of course, is the complicated question you're allowed to spend as much money as you want on your campaign. you have to declare. >> that pesky little rule. >> stuff it in a boxing glove and stick it in someone's carry-on bag. this is remarkable. emily jane fox, senior "vanity fair" reporter. thank you very much. all right. much more to get to. stay with us. e to get to. stay with us eh, it just feels too complicated, you know? well sure, at first, but jj can help you with that. jj, will you break it down for this gentleman? hey, ian. you know, at td ameritrade, we can walk you through your options trades step by step until you're comfortable. i could be up for that. that's taking options trading from wall st. to main st. hey guys, wanna play some pool? eh, i'm not really a pool guy. what's the hesitation? it's just complicated. step-by-step options trading support from td ameritrade

each day justin at work... walk. 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.

whoooo. did you know the exact same hotel room... ...can have many different prices? that's why tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites to find the lowest price on the hotel you want. your perfect hotel room for the perfect price! nothing can prepare you to hear those words... stage 2 breast cancer. i have three little kids. i can't have cancer. so we decided to travel to cancer treatment centers of america. dr. fernandez was wonderful. he said it was up to me to do what's best. it's about giving her options, where amy has all the information to make a decision that's best for her. we left on day one feeling like we're gonna beat this and this is the place that's gonna help us do it... that feeling is priceless. learn more at cancercenter.com. appointments available now.

we have been covering unexpectedly suspenseful effort over this past week to try to prevent the trump administration from dropping sanctions against companies associated with a putin allying russian oligarch named oleg deripaska. sanctioned over interference in our election. when the effort to stop the lifting of those sanctions came up for a vote in the senate yesterday, 11 republicans broke ranks with republican leadership and the trump white house and voted with the democrats that the trump administration's plan to lift those sanctions should be revoked, should be blocked. the vote to block the administration from lifting those sanctions, it was 57-42, and that sounds like it won. that's a big majority, right, 57 votes, 11 republicans joining the democrats, breaking ranks, but still that wasn't enough to get them to the 60-vote threshold they needed to stop this thing. so they got close to stopping it in the senate. they did fall short by a couple

of republican votes. you can thank mitt romney and lindsey graham. but check this out. today democrats in the house introduced their own version of this resolution trying to block the lifting of sanctions on deripaska's companies. and in the house they hit it out of the park. the house voted overwhelmingly to stop the trump administration from lifting the deripaska sanctions. the vote in the house was 362-53. of the 362 yes votes, there were 136 republicans who broke ranks, who joined house democrats today in a big bipartisan overwhelming rebuke of the trump administration on this issue. and the house vote alone cannot stop the trump administration from lifting these sanctions on deripaska's companies. can't do it without the senate passing it, too. but the house spoke in a pretty unified voice. that's a lot of republicans, way more republicans telling the

trump administration they're wrong on this than siding with the trump administration on this. now what does this mean going forward? a super pointed question you ought to be asking about that is coming up next. stay with us. "green book" is the feel good movie

woo! that's the winner of 3 golden globes. that was a good time. [ laughing ] best supporting actor, best screen play and best picture of the year. he's a true virtuoso. i think he's really good. can really get you going. but mania, such as unusual changes in your mood, activity or energy levels, can leave you on... shaky ground. help take control by asking your healthcare provider about vraylar. vraylar treats acute mania of bipolar i disorder. vraylar significantly reduces overall manic symptoms, and was proven in adults with mixed episodes who have both mania and depression. vraylar should not be used in elderly patients with dementia, due to increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about fever,

stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. high cholesterol and weight gain; high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death; decreased white blood cells, which can be fatal; dizziness upon standing; falls; seizures; impaired judgement; heat sensitivity; and trouble swallowing may occur. you're more than just your bipolar i. ask about vraylar. reach her health goals! i'm in! but first... shelfie! the great-tasting nutrition of ensure. with up to 30 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals! ensure. for strength and energy. ensure. with the chase ink business unlimited card, i get unlimited 1.5% cash back. it's so simple, i don't even have to think about it. so i think about mouthfeel. i don't think about the ink card. i think about nitrogen ice cream in supermarkets all over the world. i think about the details. fine, i obsess over the details. think about every part of your business except the one part that works without a thought. your ink card.

chase ink business unlimited. chase ink business unlimited, with unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase. chase for business. make more of what's yours. check this out. you may remember this. it's a video posted to instagram a couple of years ago. two guys on a yacht, apparently somewhere in norway. pretty scenery, fancy yacht, lots of random jump cuts and there's some dance music. but if you ignore the weird production of it and look really closely, one of those guys on the yacht reportedly is russian oligarch oleg deripaska, a belarusian woman posted this video to instagram in august of 2016, so during the 2016 campaign, along with some audio of someone she says is oleg deripaska discussing relations between the u.s. and russia. her video was uncovered last year by the anti-putin russian

opposition leader alexi navanly. he used the video in his own work. he argued that the yacht trip amounted to a bribe paid by deripaska to the other guy on the boat with him, who is allegedly the russian deputy prime minister. now, oleg deripaska famously was the patron of trump campaign chair paul manafort. manafort reportedly owed him millions of dollars before joining the trump campaign where he offered to work for free. manafort also offered deripaska private briefings on the campaign while he was trump's campaign chair. the apparent video of deripaska on the yacht with russia's deputy prime minister, it got a lot of attention at the time, including in the american press, but shortly after that news appeared, just three weeks after the video appeared online, the woman who had posted the video, anastasia v anastasia, got arrested in thailand. she said she was in thailand

teaching seduction seminars for tourists. she was originally arrested for working without a permit. she was scared of being deported, specifically ending up in russian hands, and it was under those circumstances from inside a detention center in bangkok that anastasia made a very startling claim. she said that she had more recordings of oleg deripaska. she said she had audiotape, in which you can hear deripaska and his associates discussing the u.s. 2016 presidential election. she said those tapes would specifically shed light on the russian government's interference in that election. she told "the new york times," "they were discussing elections. deripaska had a plan about elections." she said she also had recordings of conversations between deripaska and three people who spoke english fluently, people who she thought were americans. now, to be clear, deripaska has denied any wrongdoing, denied any involvement in russian

interference in the u.s. election. he's denied that russia did interfere in the u.s. election. as far as we know, nobody's heard these tapes or can confirm whether or not they exist, but there she was in march making those claims and in conjunction with these claims pleading with the united states government to please give her asylum and fleeing specifically that if she was able to get out of jail in thailand that she please not get deported back to russia. "if america gives me protection, i will tell everything i know. i am afraid to go back to russia. some strange things can happen." she stayed in that jail in months in thailand. she would end up charged soliciting prostitution. she faced a decade in prison. according to "the new york times" the fbi did try to get in touch with her when she detained but she definitely never got the asylum from the united states. in august she said she no longer had these tapes. she said she had given them to deripaska and promised him her

silence. then on tuesday in an unexpected move, she appeared in court, pled guilty to prostitution charges and under a deal worked out ahead of time with the judge apparently, that guilty plea laid the groundwork for her to be released, time served, you're out. released and deported. a friend of hers told "the washington post" she was hoping to be deported somewhere on earth other than russia. if a situation like this could be described as hopeful, well, thailand shipped her out of the country this morning. she reportedly had been offered safe passage on her way home to belarus. she reportedly had been told that even show she would have to stop in moscow on her commercial flight on her way home to belarus, she would be allowed to proceed home. today when she landed in moscow for a change of flights, she was arrested. she was taken at the airport. a ton of journalists in that

airport waiting there to try to talk to her. she was not allowed to speak to anybody. she was taken by russian law enforcement. she had asked for help months ago after challenging this russian oligarch, challenging oleg deripaska and said she had evidence of his involvement in what happened in our election. she wanted u.s. help. she definitely did not get u.s. help. what happens now we don't know. while all of that has been playing out on the other side of the world, stateside, we have been following a very little different challenge to oleg deripaska. the trump administration moved just before christmas to drop u.s. sanctions on all of his companies. as we have been covering on monday, 11 republicans in the senate joined democrats in trying to block that plan, but that effort fell two votes short. in the house today, though, as i mentioned, it was a different story. today in the house 136 republicans, nearly 70% of the republican members of the house, joined the democrats in saying no, no sanctions relief for deripaska, not now, not in the middle of this.

other intelligence consequences of what's going on around this russian oligarch, these votes and this action overseas. congressman eric swalwell joins us live in just a moment. ntheard she's watching too, saying [indistinct conversation] [friend] i've never seen that before. ♪ ♪ i have... ♪ i have... fresh-baked, and hand-crafted, with 100% clean ingredients. just a few good reasons to give into your cravings. now delivering. panera. food as it should be.

carla is living with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of her body. she's also taking prescription ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor, which is for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive her2- metastatic breast cancer as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole was significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus letrozole. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. carla calls it her new normal because a lot has changed, but a lot hasn't. ask your doctor about ibrance.

the #1 prescribed fda-approved oral combination treatment for hr+/her2- mbc. starts with looking buiat something old,nk and saying, "really?" so capital one is building something completely new. capital one cafes. inviting places with people here to help you, not sell you. and savings and checking accounts with no fees or minimums. because that's how it should be. you can open one from right here or anywhere in 5 minutes. seriously, 5 minutes... this is banking reimagined. what's in your wallet?

congressman eric swalwell of california. he's on both the intelligence committee and the judiciary committee. congressman, it's really nice to have you here tonight. thanks for your time. >> thank you, rachel. thanks for having me back. >> i want to ask you first about -- actually just about the shutdown. i don't know if you have any insights for us or any predictions for us about how and

when this is finally going to end. i don't know if you can tell if the end is coming. >> boy, i hope it's coming. before the show i was serving meals to federal workers at the world central kitchen with jose andres' team, and it was very hard to see, you know, fbi, police officers in uniform coming in for meals, mothers bringing their kids. and it was also federal workers volunteering to serve other federal workers, showing solidarity with their colleagues. and they just want us to open up government. i heard time after time. whatever the politics is here, can you at least just open up government and then negotiate what has to be done for border security. >> we've seen an interesting i think sort of collapse of what is the usual partisan divide in congress, specifically on this issue of russian sanctions over the past few days. we saw 11 republican senators peel off from their leadership and from the trump white house in the senate.

we saw 136 republicans today in the house peel off from the trump white house and join democrats to try to stop the trump administration from lifting russian sanctions associated with oleg deripaska. i know the shutdown and the sanctions issue are different things, but i wondered if that kind of fissure, that kind of fracturing of our usual partisan expectations gives you some hope. >> well, it does. it also shows and demonstrates that there's bipartisan consensus in both chambers. over 400 members between both chambers that believe that this is a bad move for our national security. and also recognizes that sanctions are a tactic to change behavior. and russia hasn't changed its behavior. former secretary of defense james mattis said that they actually sought to interfere in the 2018 election just as they were in the 2016 election. so why would we be rewarding them? i'll just say this, rachel. if you're looking at a quid pro quo, i think you can file this under the quo.

more quo evidence between donald trump and russia. and it's actually dramatically sped up since that helsinki meeting, where we don't know what was said, where the interpreter's notes have been taken by the president. since that meeting with vladimir putin, president trump has now sought to ease sanctions, he's pulled us abruptly out of syria, and now we've learned from reporting he has time after time talked about pulling us out of nato. and just today as speaker pelosi was going to brussels to meet with nato leadership he cancels her trip, which may be a petty move in light of what's going on with the shutdown on his part but may also be i think his insecurity about demonstrating support for nato. >> on that specific vote in congress, too, i'm also struck by the fact that we've had a whole bunch of revelations and hard questions raised specifically about deripaska while the trump administration is lifting sanctions specifically on his companies. i mean, we just got that the somewhat inadvertent revelation that manafort was sharing

polling data from inside the campaign with his intermediary with daps, who is a guy associated with russian intelligence. deripaska, of course, is the guy who manafort was offering private briefings too. there's this disturbing case of this belarusian woman who just got out of prison saying -- after having said that she had damning evidence linking oleg deripaska to the russian election interference effort. she had apparently given assurances that she would be left alone by russia and allowed to go home. russia then picked her up at the moscow airport today and she hasn't been heard from since. all of these things are sort of deripaska adjacent. while the administration is moving to ease sanctions specifically related to him. >> there are only open questions about deripaska, and there's none that have been closed. we know that the mueller investigation is still open, that the line of inquiry into paul manafort is still open. his sentencing hasn't occurred. and manafort had a direct line of communication to deripaska. there's classified information about deripaska as well that mr. schiff, our chairman, talked about. not the classified information but the existence of it.

on the floor today. we know he's connected to vladimir putin. i think the most responsible thing to do would be if there's ever going to be a discussion about easing sanctions against russia, have that conversation, have that discussion after the mueller investigation is closed. >> congressman eric swalwell from the intelligence committee, the judiciary committee. sir, thank you very much. good to have you here. >> my pleasure. thank you. >> we'll be right back. stay with us.

>> rachel, i'm missing a blue blazer in my closet upstairs. i -- yeah. yeah.