let's get you right to the state department. on the left side of your screen you will be seeing the spokesperson step in front of the microphone for an update on the crisis with russia and ukraine, a crisis ramping up this hour with new warnings from president biden saying sanctions against vladimir putin personally are not off the table and adding this about a potential russian invasion of ukraine. >> if he were to move in it would be the largest invasion since world war ii and change

the world. >> we're getting new details from the commander in chief on what could trigger a u.s. top deployment as top pentagon officials brief capitol hill today. the state department briefing when the news conference starts with our teams standing by here in washington and around the world. also this hour the biggest names in the january 6th investigation entering not guilty pleas including the head of the oath keepers stewart rhodes. what else happened in federal court and inside congressional investigation. jamie raskin a member of the select committee is here live with us one on one in a couple minutes. i'm hallie jackson in washington along with other nbc news team to start us off. peter alexander at the white house, courtney at the pentagon, garrett haake at capitol hill and matt bradley in kiev. let me slew blanket apology in case i have to interrupt any of you. we want to hear from that end of washington on the latest.

we heard from president biden who was clear about the potential consequences for vladimir putin if russia invades. talk us through this. this was not an expected news conference from president biden. these were off-the-cuff remarks to a group of reporters traveling with him today. >> that's exactly right. there was nothing on his public schedule but they added this unannounced stop at a small business and when the president was doing some shopping he turned to reporters and said you may have some questions. it was clear he had a message he wanted to communicate on ukraine, and it sounded like it was focused on the idea he would be willing to move some of the 8500 forces put on this heightened state of alert further to their positions in advance of any action from russia. he here is what the president said when pressed on that topic today. >> what would lead to that is what's going to happen, what putin does or doesn't do. i may be moving some of those troops in the near term, just because it takes time.

we have no intention of putting american forces, our nato force, if ukraine, but as i said, they're going to be serious economic consequences if he moves. >> reporter: earlier today a senior administration official detailed what could go beyond those consequences, those sanctions, saying the u.s. was looking at barring specific, strategic industries in terms of the exports that russia could receive, focusing specifically on tech exports that country would want to receive. russia focuses almost solely on oil and gas as they try to get in the industries of aerospace and artificial intelligence and commuting, if they can't get access to software and other technologies the u.s. has that would be in the u.s.'s view a crip bling sanction as well. >> courtney, to you, because you heard from president biden and as peter laid out, the idea that there may be some movement of those troops in what he described the near term because of some of the logistics

involved in that. what are you hearing from pentagon sources on that front? >> reporter: that's moving some of the troops from here in the united states into eastern europe. the president is right, it can take a matter of days to not only get them, you know, ready to deploy from here in the united states but to move them over and get them settled. that's most likely what president was talking about. we have to point out this deployment, this up to 8500 troops here based here again in the united states, most of them would actually be assigned to the nato response force. that is -- that has not been stood up yet. nato has not activated what they call the nrf, so at this point if they are preparing to deploy any troops or if any troops get deployment orders that would potentially be for a unilateral u.s. movement into the region. we expect if that does happen, that it will be a much smaller number of that total 8500 than the ones assigned to allies aro

ukraine, as president biden said again today, there is -- there are no plans at this point to send any u.s. military troops into ukraine. the u.s., of course, already does have a relatively small number of military trainers there in ukraine working with ukrainian military, something that's been going on for a number of years now, but at this point there are no plans to add up that presence or send in equipment with the exception of the equipment that the u.s. is lethal and nonlethal aid that the u.s. has been providing to them and is continuing to provide. today we saw more airplanes fly into ukraine to deliver more of that aid. >> peter, courtney is making an important point here that has to do with the specifics of the language that we heard from president biden and administration officials, which is, there is no intention of putting troops in ukraine. it does seem different than saying that is flatly off the

table altogether. no? >> i think you're right. by the way, fact that we're talking about troops in general is a serious pivot for this white house. nearly two hours last week was focused on economic sanctions and that was the primary focus, the consequence that u.s. was threatening the idea that they're not activating but putting additional troops on a heightened state of alert is a change in posture for the u.s. and certainly in tone from the president himself. again today, and he was clear about this, he didn't want any of this words to be viewed as provocative. he said none of this is intended as provocative, but i said to vladimir putin when we met last summer that there would be severe consequences and we are following the course of our commitment back then and we're going to see this thing through. that was sort of the bottom line for the president as well because he doesn't want to be the one accelerating things. they want to be responding to russia in a forceful way. >> there's also the congressional piece of this which you are all over, as we're getting word in about this -- another bipartisan congressional delegation during this recess week as they're overseas holding

meetings in yurps, classified briefings in washington, even though lawmakers are out of town right now. fill us in on the latest. >> congress is going to be reactive here by nature but trying to make sure they're up to date on russia and ukraine every day this crisis continues. classified briefings for committee level staff, leadership aides, the folks in the most need to know position and are here in washington. there will be briefings for all lawmakers house and senate when they get back to town next week. some of this is so that members of congress can be up to speed as possible should they want to go the route of perhaps sending more aid to ukraine in the future. some of it is to make sure everyone in the u.s. government is singing from the same hymnal. we saw mitch mcconnell in kentucky get asked about ukraine and thinks the biden administration is basically doing everything right so far. that is important to present a unified front in these international situations. that's what we're seeing congress prepare to do.

>> when you and i spoke roughly 24 hours ago on the other show that i do, you said something interesting. you talked about how in the u.s. from the pentagon, from the white house, from the capitol with our reporters here on screen, there is this, you know, real concern about the potential that we are on the brink of war here. it is a very different vibe where you are on the ground in ukraine. that people think, as you described, that is a lot of western talk, perhaps western hyperbole. i wonder if in the last 24 hours, particularly as there have been more developments that has changed or what you're seeing or hearing on the ground? >> i mean, certainly what i'm hearing from ordinary people walking around on the street that's totally the same. again, the mood is still the same. we were out to dinner, things were fine, people singing in the restaurant. it was all extremely normal and that's what's remarkable. how normal it was. that hasn't changed. also, on the level of official dom, it hasn't changed either and what we're hearing from

people in government, people close to the government, is the same message. officially, they are preparing for the worse. they are preparing for war and girding for a massive invasion. but at the same time there is a lot of skepticism within this government that vladimir putin is going to pull the trigger and going to invade. because for a lot of folks here, even though they're very aware that the russian military would make strong robust advances in the early days and hours of an attack, holding that ground is what makes this such a gamble. the russian military would overwhelm the ukrainian military, especially from the air and from the sea. which means they would actually make a lot of strides without ever putting one boot inside ukrainian territory. they wouldn't have to necessarily. they could do air strikes and they could do a lot of surface-to-surface strikes from outside of ukrainian borderers and make a feel of the ukrainian military quickly. once they cross the berm into this country, they're going to have a hard time holding territory and that's why a lot

of people in this government are wondering, whether vladimir putin is actually going to go ahead with it or whether he's just rattling his saber and thinking the same thing about the west, maybe they're being a bit dramatic. >> matt bradley live in kiev, garrett haake, courtney, peter, thank you very much to all of you for your reporting this afternoon. we're watching the state department briefing. it is a couple minutes late at this point. while we wait to hear from them i want to bring in retired brigadier general, who served as the senior defense official and attache to russia in 2014 which led to the annexation of crimea. thank you for being on the show. good afternoon to you. >> thank you for having me, hallie. >> lay out for me how what you're seeing on russia's side of things compares to the lead up to what we saw in 2014? >> well, i think the first thing that jumps out is that there's nothing ambiguous about the

russian position, and its, if you will, military set today. in 2014, and this is during and after sochi, we had the first, if you will, moves in crimea and then annexation, the infiltrating into eastern ukraine. now there were russian troop sets and all of that. the rhetoric was there. the patriotic music was there. what makes this different is it from really -- really all the way back to april once we put the pieces together, they have been posturing, maneuvering, training, and there's over 100,000 within a proximity of the border and many more, if you will come in the eastern military district and central military district. they're in belarus.

there's nothing ambiguous about it. it get to the prior point, there is a coercive aspect to this that there's a side of me that wants to believe no, they won't go, they're going to try to intimidate everybody, but where i think they're surprised is that, a, ukraine has showed a lot of moxie, and europe unexpectedly is pulling together in a way had they hadn't anticipated. there will always be spats. now they've got that problem. with all of this intrusion and all this noise, they have put themselves, i believe, in a diplomatic cul-de-sac where all right, we've made our points or double down now in part because they're afraid of showing weakness internationally and also domestically. the russian population, patriotic, supportive, as we've learned in history are not

mindlessly compliant. >> i wonder, when you hear president biden say, as he did within the last hour as folks watched unfold live here on msnbc, say that he is willing to personally sanction vladimir putin if he goes in, what more of the consequences would be for russia, do you believe vladimir putin is hearing that message and internalizing that message and taking it seriously? >> i mean, i think that sanctions overall matter and i can't speak for vladimir putin, but certainly it is a shot fired, if you will, across the bow. it really is aimed at the entire leadership that when i look at this, when we look at this, has set the risk of war. i don't think anybody even in russia -- we don't -- have a sense of the -- how horrific a major war in europe, in ukraine, would be today with tens of

thousands of dying and all that. going back to putin, they need to know that the west is focused, the whole world is watching. if they launch and they -- you know, they can lay out the justification, but it is aggression and going back to sanctions and diplomacy, i don't think the senior russian leadership in the end wants to be in a worldwide diplomatic and international pressure cooker economically. it's bad for business too to a regime where money matters. >> given where everything stands right now, general, what do you believe? what is your biggest concern about the state of play at the moment? >> my biggest state of concern is -- i'm so glad the media especially has picked up and thrown out there the prospect of a provocation because i think the russians to go, they need to

in their own mind feel they can be credible to the world and to their own people. meaning, just going is now aggression and they want to be able to create -- create the environment which is what is amazing the russian media is reporting that you have 100,000 ukrainian forces right now on the border of donbass, yeah, they're in defensive position, but the russians are saying they're poised to attack into the russian separatist zones. we've got to be there to intervene. if the russians can portray an intervention instead of just brazen aggression, which will turn badly for them as the prior commentators go, but it would be horrific for ukraine who is caught in all of this and really ugly for the west, last thing, i worry very much if all the temperatures and all the

rhetoric and all that you get an accident incident provocation and then somewhere, you know, def cons go up and everybody gets anxious and we are and they are nuclear tipped and god forbid if we're ever that way, highly unlikely but that is the high end of the threat here. >> it sure is, right. i think the question is on the other end of the spectrum, if there is a provocation, you're talking about provocation, a cyber attack, do you believe the usz u.s. is better prepared to fight a cyber attack and how do you see that changing things? >> we're pretty darn good. we're also more discreet. i believe several times over the last few years after major cyber hacks we had our twice kind of -- the russian and chinese and the other nations on the

shoulder. we're aware, we're doing stuff, this is to get your attention. let's not go down this avenue because all the new generation of weapons, cyber enabled, a.i., all of that is out there too and that's what also makes this so potentially frightening. i think russians they got to take a step back and we've got to let them find a way to step back. it is not -- they made their point. go off line. let's start talking about it. right now a whole discussion of the european architecture is in play but the key thing for us, we are tight with our allies and there are always warts and that i don't believe the kremlin fully anticipated. >> thank you so much for your expertise and time with us. we want to take you to the state department where spokesperson ned price is beginning the briefing. clearly ukraine, russia and the

crisis there is likely to be top of mind. let's listen in for a minute. >> start with russia today. the decision by russian authorities to add imprisoned opposition figure alexei navalny and eight of his allies to the registry of so-called extremist terrorist is disturbing. russian authorities have criminalized one of the country's remaining independent movements with their designation of navalny affiliated organizations as, quote, unquote, extremist. the latest designation represents a new low in russia's crackdown on independent civil society. we urge russia to cease the abuse of, quote, unquote, extremism designation to target nonviolent organizations, end its repression of mr. navalny and supporters and honor its ob fwligations to respect and ensure human rights and fundamental freedoms. the russian people, like all people v the right to speak friel, form peaceful

associations to common ends, exercise religious freedom, and have their voices heard through free and fair elections. mr. navalny remains imprisoned on politically fabricated grounds. we have been consistently clear about that. we call again for his immediate and unconditional release. with that, happy to take your questions. >> i want to start with russia, but not with navalny. a couple things. they will be brief. one, do you have any timeline now? the white house punted to you guys when they were asked when in response the response was going to be sent to now cow. >> what i can tell you is that the response has not been transmitted to mass cow but i can assure you once the response is set, we will let you know. stay tuned. >> and you'll be giving it to us as well? >> we will let you know. stay tuned.

>> we will let you know on a timely basis. >> secondly, yesterday i believe you said something about how over the course of the past week or ten days or so in terms of form late whagts response is going to be, that you were consulting with nato allies, partners and allies, and i wanted to know, does that include ukraine? have ukrainian officials been consulted about what this response is going to bes and are you taking into account their concerns or considerations in the document? >> yes, and yes. we have been consulting extensively with our allies and partners and, of course, when it comes to the latter category that includes ukraine. we have not only informed them and given them a preview of what will be in the report, but we have actually solicited their feedback and incorporated that feedback into our report. there will be no surprises, there will be no surprises for

nato, no surprises for our european allies. there will be no surprises for our ukrainian partners. >> there will be no surprises for us or the either. >> we have been clear because you have heard us consistently say what the areas where diplomacy and dialog may prove fruitful and viable, and the areas that are just nonstarters. you know, i take it from your questions that there's a perception that we have been less transparent than or might be less transparent than the other side, than the russians in this case. what i would say is that the russians have held out one criterion and that is, their demans when it comes to nato and open door and we've been clear about that. we have also been very clear about specific areas, whether it's the placement of offensive

missiles, whether it is transparency, exercises, whether it is broader arms control measures, where if done on a reciprocal basis, there is the potential to enhance collective transatlantic and broader security. those are areas we've been clear that we're willing to engage in dialog. we have been consistently transparent with all of you just as we have conveyed this clearly and consistently to the russian federation. >> let me ask this. is there going to be anything in there that russians aren't already aware of that are your positions? >> you will have to ask the russians when they see the response. >> it sounds as though there won't be anything in there that's a surprise which means that it's kind of, you know, a document that is kind of a dead letter, right? >> well, look if you're pointing to the fact that we have been very clear, both in public and in private, with the russian federation, with the russian federation and the strategic

stability dialog, with the russian federation with minister lavrov last week, the nato russian council, the context of the organization for security and cooperation in europe the osce we have been clear about the areas where we believe dialog and diplomacy has the potential to enhance our collective security and we've been clear about the areas that for us are just nonstarters. for us that would be fundamental violations of the founding principles of nato and other foundational security instruments that have protected, enhapsds, promoted, unprecedented levels of security, stability, prosperity, for the past 70 years. so you will have to ask the russians for their response once they see our written report, but you are correct in one regard. we have been clear and consistent about areas where

diplomacy and dialog may be fruitful and areas where we are sincerely and steadfastly interested in engaging in that diplomacy and areas where it's a nonstarter. >> one of your colleagues at the white house on a background call said that if if it gets down to the point you're going to impose sanctions, quote, we'll start at the top of the escalation ladder and stay there. i'm just wondering, is that a wise thing to do to start at the very top so that only thing -- only thing more you could do would be to -- would be some kind of military action? >> let me take a step back and answer that question this way. first, you have heard from us consistently, you've heard this consistently in the categories of things we've been consistent about f any russian forces move across the ukrainian border f there is a renewed invasion, it

will be met with a swift, severe, and united response to the only from the united states, but also from our allies and partners. we have spoken consistently about the fact that that swift, severe and united response will be unprecedented, that it will entail measures that we intentionally skewed in the past including in 2014 when russia last invaded ukraine. but it also will be unprecedented in its approach and this is the point that you were getting to, matt, one of my colleagues made this morning, my colleague said that -- and you quoted it partially -- the gradualism of the past is out and we'll start at the top of the escalation ladder and stay there. >> my question is there, if you're at the top of the escalation ladder and something else happens, you don't have any further to climb on the ladder. you fall off or jump on to the

roof if the ladder is attached to something. i don't understand. is it really -- is it smart to start at the -- at -- by going all out with nothing left in reserve? are you saying that whatever you guys -- should it become necessary whatever you guys will impose in terms of sanctions, can't be topped? >> you have to recall -- >> because if they can be, and if there are steps that you're not going to take, then you're not starting at the top of the escalation ladder. >> a couple points. one, you have to recall what this is about and what's at stake here. if this swift, severe, and united response goes into effect -- let me be clear we hope it need not have to, we hope that dialog and diplomacy can find a way out of this, deescalation and ult throw a peaceful resolution of this russian aggression -- but if we get there what we will be talking about is renewed, a

renewed russian invasion of ukraine and the stakes of that, as we talked about yesterday, are important in the context of ukraine, of course, a close partner of the united states, a sovereign independent country itself, and that, of course, is important to us, it's important beyond ukraine as well. the what should be rules of the rules based international order would come under assault and be undermined. they would be potentially eroded. if the international community were not to take drastic steps to show vladimir putin, to show the russian federation, that this is not the kind of action that can be tolerated in the 21st century, these are the actions we sought to relegate to the dust bin of history after the second world war. if vladimir putin think renewed aggression won't be met with severe, swift, united response, he would be wrong.

there's another point here that i think is important, though. even in the -- even in the current phase, even in recent weeks, we have seen financial markets price in a greater risk premium into russian financial assets amid the increasing movement of troops. it is not just us that is warning of this swift, severe, and united response. financial markets, private sector actors, are taking note. the russian ruble hit its weakest level in over a year versus the that are. it's the worst performing emerging market currency so far this year. russian sovereign borrowing costs in terms of the ten-year bonds have increased to their highest levels since 2016. russia's stock market has sunk to its lowest levels in a year.

but the other point -- and market participants know this -- is that what we're seeing now, is nothing compared to what would befall the russian federation, the russian economy, if russia's invasion were to go forward. to your point, matt, i just want to be clear about this, this is not about -- this is not about punishment. this is right now about deterrence. we are seeking to do everything we can, in the -- in the prelude to what could be additional russian aggression, to deter a further russian invasion of ukraine. that is why it behooves us to be crystal clear with the russian federation, vladimir putin, about the severe costs and consequences that would befall him and his country if he were to go forward with this. it doesn't do us any good to

pull punches, to be ambiguous or obscure in terms of what we're talking about. we've tried to be clear about that. andrea? >> a couple things. francis mcclone said today that he will be talking to vladimir putin on friday. is that helpful? does that undercut the u.s./lavrov talks or any talks at a higher level, you know, where mixed messages could be conveyed germany, to my knowledge, based on what german officials are saying have not yet authorized the estonian transfer of artillery. is the delay in making that decision tantamount to -- >> is that tantamount to approving it because of the

delay and ukrainians are saying -- zelensky said to his people nothing is imminent, you can sleep, don't pack your bags, don't worry. how does that, you know -- how do you synchronize that with the warnings from the white house that an invasion could be imminent, could come at any time? is there a disconnect between us and the ukrainian government in terms of our approach? there are reports from the ground that kraens feel left out of the diplomacy despite all of your -- despite the secretary's visit, your arguments nothing about ukraine without ukraine. >> let me take those first. on the french proposal to engage in dialog with the russian federation. i would remind everyone precisely what we heard from nato, from the osce, from our

european allies, they're very positive, very warm reaction to the fact that the united states in full consultation with nato, with the osce, our european allies, with the ukrainians, as of a couple weeks ago, plan to sit down in the context of the strategic stability dialog, the engagement that our deputy secretary of state led in geneva, they have been supportive of our bilateral engagements with now more recently foreign minister lavrov and supported for i would say primarily one reason and that one reason is the fact that we have done all of this in full coordination. >> but that -- >> in full consultation with them. >> to that point just this week, macron said that eu should have its own conversations with russia. >> and just as our partners and allies have welcomed our coordinated consultative engagements with the russian federation we would welcome

dialog and diplomacy that could serve to deescalate in which the russian federation engages in good faith. we would be behind anything that would serve to deescalate tensions in a genuine way. that is precisely why we have engaged multilaterally and also bilaterally again in full consultation with our partners and allies with the russian federation. there are two paths. you've heard us say this before. the path of diplomacy and dialog and the path of defense and deterrence. we are pursuing both paths simultaneously knowing that we have to be ready for either decision. >> you have been listening, of course, to state department spokesperson ned price briefing correspondents including andrea mitchell as you heard and reporters that cover the state department on the response of the u.s. ukraine crisis. mike memoli outside the white house, a unified response from

the administration regarding what their plan is, what their intentions are and what they're willing to say publicly on this. >> i want to pick up where ned price was ending, and he talked about the two paths that administration has laid before the russians. there's diplomacy and dialog and deterrence and defense. it sounds more and more like the path we're going down is deterrence and defense based on the moves the administration is making and that's why the intensive cooperation and dialog on our own side the united states with our european allies and the call that the president was having at this time yesterday is so critical. yesterday, of course, the big news out of the administration was the announcement of that more than 8,000 troops being put on alert ready to deploy. the president amplifying that more by saying he could potentially deploy some of those in the near term. today we're getting more of a read and another focus from ned price at the state department about some of the economic sanctions, some of the new options on the table that haven't been discussed publicly

before. it revolves around something the white house was talking about today as well. one is, trying to find other sources of natural gas that could help supplement especially our european al highs who are worried that if russia is sanctioned here and if they were to move, that russia would respond by cutting off the energy which western europe, so dependent on. the u.s. is working to find other resources beyond russia to fill in that gap but more importantly, work, the united states is also talking about from a position of strength, what they call novel export controls trying to really harm russia's economy by -- they're trying diversify their economy beyond energy production to include things like semiconductors, artificial intelligence, other more advanced technologies that the u.s. has tools here as well to cut off sharing those semiconductors, those chips so essential for that. all of this speaks to what is a heightened alert more broadly around the situation with ukraine and the u.s.

increasingly willing to discuss all options more publicly at this stage as well. >> mike memoli, thank you very much. other big headlines including the investigations into the january 6th insurrection. nbc news confirming conspiracy theoryist alex jones was deposed 24 hours ago monday in front of the select committee but he didn't really say much. instead he asserted his fifth amendment right nearly 100 times over and over. we're also learning today that a group of alleged january 6th rioters charged with seditious conspiracy are getting their first day in court that includes stewart rods who has pleaded not guilty. a trial date has been set for mid-april. capitol police officer eugene goodman, remember him from this viral video leading rioters away from where lawmakers were huddled feet away, he is now talking for the very first time since the attack and he's crediting his fellow officers with being restrained on that day and said it could have been

a lot worse had it gone differentlily. lot of threads to talk about, before we get to jamie raskin, senior political reporter and news reporter as well. let's start with the alex jones news. sounds like the committee didn't get much out of him. the fact that he showed up is probably the most news worthy part of this discussion. >> alex jones saying he testified remotely yesterday and said later on on his own radio show that questions were overall pretty reasonable. he said the committee was polite but dogged, but that he was advised by his lawyers beforehand to invoex the fifth amendment, and he did that more than 100 times. committee sources have told me in the past they considered the fifth amendment an extremely weighty issue and they will evaluate invocations of the fifth amendment on a case by case, question by question basis to decide if they're in compliance with the subpoena. if the committee asked what he ate for lunch and say he is

invoking the fifth they may not take kindly for that. regardless they got him to show up and got him to at least take their questions. we'll see if they got anything useful out of him. >> ken, there's the news developing this afternoon and the oath keepers case with the judge overseeing that one saying she needs more time to figure out whether or not rhodes, stewart rhodes, is going to be held before trial. we know that the seditious conspiracy charges as we've talked about are some of the more serious that we've seen. do you have any sense of what the judge might do here? >> these are very serious charges, but at the same time criminal defendants are presumed to be entitled to bail unless they pose a danger or flight risk and the judge who preceded over rhodes detention hearing seemed open to granting bail. the judge questioned his lawyers about potential custodians who could supervise rods if released and didn't see evidence he's at risk of failing to appear for trial. prosecutors argue there was a

chance he could flee because he doesn't have a permanent address and argue he poses a danger to society because he's accused of essentially trying to disrupt the lawful functioning of government by force. one prosecutor said it's difficult to imagine a graver risk to the society we live in and added rhodes coordinated and offered to fund and facilitated the attack on the capitol. a former army trooper and yale student appeared in a jail jump suit facing up to 20 years in prison. whatever this texas judge decides can be appealed to the presiding judge in d.c. who heard the not guilty pleas you mentioned today including from rhodes via video conference. >> real quick, looking ahead to a trial a few months away if it does happen mid-april, what does that look like? >> i cannot imagine the trial would happen that fast in the covid era. >> it seems quick. >> oftentimes you get the trial dates and then they push, but the stakes on this one are high. i mean this is the most serious

charges so far to come out of this capitol riot investigation and there's a sense that there could be more to come here. when you have a conspiracy you can always add co-defendants later when you discover other people who were part of that conspiracy and as we know there's a lot of focus on some of the people who maybe weren't at the capitol but talking about and encouraging this insurrection, hallie? >> back to you on something that is rather extraordinary, right, which is officer eugene goodman who became very well known, right, that video that we showed a second ago, i think we have more footage, feels like everybody saw, right, a face of bravery, he was honored by so many people but he has stayed silent more than a year and hasn't spoken publicly until now and shows up on this podcast. why did he decide now is the moment where he would share more about what happened that day? >> hallie, it's not clear there was anything deliberate about the timing of the podcast. what is clear is that officer

goodman felt comfortable with the host of this podcast called "three brothers no --" one of whom is apparently a personal friend of goodman's, and he has turned down media requests over the last year because he doesn't want the negativity that comes with the fame and renowned. officer goodman is famous for the video you mentioned of him luring, you see it on the screen, luring those rioters away from the senate floor. it's chilling to imagine what would have happened if they had walked in that direction and walked on to the senate floor while the lawmakers were there. there's a separate video as well that emerged later of goodman escorting rushing mitt romney from utah to safety when the mob seemed to be moving in his direction and with that context, i want to play a little bit of what goodman had to say about that day. >> i heard stories of people being armed. it could have been easily been a bloodbath. so kudos to everybody there that

showed a measure of restraint with regards to deadly force because it could have been bad, really, really bad. now goodman has since been recognized for his bravery. he was chosen to escort vice president harris at the inauguration, and he was by unanimous vote of the senate given the congressional gold medal which is a high civilian honor and there was one other thing he said in the interview that stood off to me, i'll quote it, any situation like that you want to deescalate but survive first, unkwoits quote. i can guarantee you many people on that day felt the same way. >> thank you so much for that. ken dilanian, thank you for your reporting as well. i want to bring in mayber of the january 6th select committee, jamie raskin the author of a book "unthinkable trauma, truth and the trials of american democracy." thank you for being on the show. good afternoon to you. >> good afternoon.

thanks for having me. >> we heard from sahill about officer goodman, but he me dispatch with the headlines i would like to talk about including alex jones. we talked about in the segment he apparently showed up in front of your committee, pleaded the fifth more than a hundred times. has the committee made asisment whether the invocations were legitimate? >> well, the thing that mr. jones and all of the defendants and all of the witnesses are forgetting is that the fifth amendment is meant to be used selectively if you think that you might be incriminating yourself by answering a question. it's not a magic wand you wave over the whole proceeding and you don't have to answer anything. it's only to be used if you think that answer you're about to give will provide evidence to the government that could be used against you in prosecution for a crime. if it relates to other people,

relates to general events, if it doesn't lead to your own incrimination you can't use it like that. what we're seeing is this extravagant new deployment of the fifth amendment as a kind of, you know, get out of a subpoena card. >> do you believe that alex jones used the fifth as you described it a magic wand? is that what you saw yesterday? >> well, i wasn't part of that proceeding and i don't know that we've spoken about what happened. he's been talking about how he used the fifth amendment. i'm stating this as a principle of law. >> sure. >> having sat through some of the other proceedings. i think there's a basic legal misapprehension going on right now about what fifth amendment is. in any event, even if a person invokes the fifth amendment in a selective way as to certain questions, still the government in this case the committee, has the power to offer someone what's called use immunity,

which is we will not use anything that you state that you think might be self-incriminating against you and then you have to go ahead and answer it. that does create a little bit of a shield over what it is that they've said. but this is not a way for anybody to escape having to testify for something that the government needs them to testify about. we all owe the government our honest, truthful testimony. >> really quickly, you weren't there for this, but do you know if the committee learned anything at all that is useful from alex jones or no? >> well, based on his own telling of it, i can't imagine that we did. if he's not -- if he's not reporting what he had for breakfast or lunch and i've certainly encountered this approach before, which is just a categorical curtain that is thrown over the proceeding by a lawyer who says just take the fifth to everything. >> yeah. >> the courts will have to sort that out. i do want to point out, the vast

majority of people that we call in are cooperating and giving us very good testimony about what is what exactly took place on january 6th. >> speaking of people who are or could cooperate with you, cooperation about the informal conversations with bill barr, the former attorney general. do you have an update for us on that? do you expect him to formally appear in front of members of your committee to answer questions? >> well, you know, the committee has not met to discuss where we are on that or any other particular witness. i will say that certainly anybody who was a government official during the time period leading up to january 6th, someone that we want to talk to, especially someone in attorney general barr's position. if i had the opportunity to question him, i would want to know everything about the plan to undermine the leadership of the department of justice and to replace them with someone

willing to do whatever donald trump asked and i would want to know a lot more about the doj's approach to what took place on january 6th and what happened immediately afterwards. >> are you hopeful? are you optimistic given his engagement with the committee you will eventually get some of the answers to those questions? >> look, again, i start with the presumption that every patriotic american citizen would want to testify to help congress figure out what happened in the worst violent attack on congress since the war of 1812 and i would think that certainly a former attorney general of the united states, who is a member of the bar, would want to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, to get out the story of what happened and help us figure out the causes behind it in order to prevent such a nightmare from recurring in the future. >> let me talk about another lawyer, john eastman, who is an attorney for former president trump, ordered by a judge yesterday to turn over documents

from one of his e-mails. this i think has been from what i understand a month's long pursuit from the committee here. what do you hope to get out of him? >> yeah. we don't want any of, you know, our evidence collection efforts to be reduced to a game of cat and mouse. it's not hide and go seek. when the congress comes calling you turn over the information you have. eastman was the legal architect or one of the legal architects of the strategy of falsely thwarting joe biden's 306 majority in the electoral college, reducing that 306 vote to something below 270 in order to kick the election into the house of representatives for a so-called contingent election under the 12th amendment to the constitution and the whole guiding purpose there was they understood there we vote not one member but one state one vote and the gop had 27 state delegations, the democrats had 22, pennsylvania was split, and

even had they lost the at large representative from wyoming, miss cheney, they still would have had a majority and declared trump the president and they likely would have invoked the insurrection act as the disgraced former national security adviser michael flynn had been urging them to do to declare something akin to martial law and called out the national guard to put down the insurrection ari chaos that donald trump leashed and he would have been the hero of the hour and president for another four years. >> as you say, the hope from the committee is when you say hand us over evidence, the evidence gets handed over. we have been hearing a lot of hints from your colleagues on the committee here that there is this new phase of the investigation that we will be seeing public hearings some time soon, maybe an interim report. what is the timeline status on that front? when do you expect that to happen realistically? >> i mean, that's tbd, but i know that members are very

hopeful that it happens by the end of february or march. obviously the more stonewalling, foot dragging, nonsensical defenses are thrown up by the entourage around donald trump the more donald trump, the more difficult it is to get going on these hearings, but we have assembled a huge amount of information so at a certain point, we're just going to have to go with what we've got. but everyone out there who has information should remember the supreme court just overwhelmingly rejected donald trump's phony executive privilege claims so that's out the window, which is why now they're turned the use the fifth. >> when you say end of february or march, do you mean the report or public hearings or both? >> the hearings. the hearings we're talking about doing early in the spring. that is our hope. and i certainly hope that we will be able to get our report done by the end of the summer.

>> summertime. okay. >> that's just one member speaking. >> i have to ask you about what we played before you came on. hearing from officer goodman. you talk about, and congressman, i think you know i've talked to your colleagues repeatedly about some of the trauma that happened on that day. we've talked about the mental health fallout. the importance of speaking publicly about it. we're now hearing for the first time from officer goodman. a couple of things there. he cited the restraint of his fellow officer. said it could have been way worse on january 6th had they not been so restrained. i wonder if you agree with that and more broadly, how you are seeing and understanding people at the capitol, you have an incredibly difficult experience with, which is how you process grief and trauma at a moment like this. >> so, officer goodman gave a tour of his movements during

january 6th to our committee and when he lured them off to the left of the chamber and drew them off from the right, he likely saved some people's lives just by doing that. because had the mob gone to the right, even if they split in two directions, there would have been a direct confrontation almost certainly. but there were a lot of what ifs, a lot of close calls there. we had told our staffs not to come in that day because of covid-19. families weren't there except a few of us had a couple of members. my daughter was there. my son-in-law was there. but most people had no family there because of covid-19. had it been a regular day without a plague happening, there could have been hundreds or even thousands more people there and that would have been a nightmare as well. so we got very lucky.

i do believe the restraint, the cleverness and the dlibtive qualities of our officers saved a lot of lives. they put themselves at great risks. a lot of them were injured with broken vertebra, necks, post-traumatic stress syndrome because they decided not to take their gun out and start shooting. it would have been a blood bath, indeed. and it was expert policing and these people saved our lives and they saved our democracy. i mean, the insurrectionists were able to postpone the counting of electoral votes for four hours. for the first time in american history, there was an interruption of the peaceful transfer of power because of what they did, but they were able to get us back in there. the metropolitan police department. the capitol police officers, some virginia officers came over. those people are heroes. >> congressman jamie raskin, we're so grateful for your time

this afternoon on what i know is a busy week, busy time for you. really appreciate you being on the show. thank you, sir. from one lawmaker to another now, arizona senator kirsten sinema and for her home may be feeling less homey these days because over the weekend, the arizona democratic party censured their senior senator after she voted with republicans against a senate rules change that would have created a path for her party's voting rights bills. beyond that wrist slapping from her own party, calls for a primary challenger, efforts to try and yank some of her funding have grown more and more in these past few weeks. new polling shows sinema's favorability among democrats tanking. joining me now, leanne caldwell who's in arizona for for a couple of days here. talk about the dialogue around senator sinema. what are you hearing? where does she still have support and where is it eroding?

>> that's right. there's a lot of people talking about sinema here, especially in the democratic base. they're furious with her. they're furious over the vote last week to not allow voting righting to go through because she wouldn't change the senate rules and the reason is, you have to remember that all of this is playing out when arizona is part of the ground zero of the debate around the country among republican legislatures regarding voting rights and voting access. as we speak, the republican-led legislature is advancing pieces of legislation to make it more difficult to vote and that is why so many democrats are furious with senator sinema. i spoke to one democratic yesterday, an up and coming rising star in the democratic party. let's listen to what he had so say. >> i know it's a couple of

years away, but would you support her campaign next time around? >> absolutely not. >> we've seen -- to be able to demonstrate we're serious on this one particular issue, on protecting our freedom to vote. i think that's why we're so organized to figure out who our new candidate will be in 2024. >> not all democrats think the same. i spoke to another member who said look, i think that democrats are going to remember the 99% of things that sinema did that is good for the democratic party and when she's up for re-election in 2024, they'll forget about this 1%, but there's efforts underway to recruit challengers against her. she's not up with cycle. it's a very difficult terrain for her. if she wants to get past the democratic primary to move on to the general election. >> live for us in gorgeous

phoenix. really appreciate all of you watching this hour. deadline white house starts right after the break. s hour deadline white house starts right after the break. but whatever work becomes, the servicenow platform will make it just, flow. whether it's finding new ways to help you serve your customers, orchestrating a safe return to the office... wait. an office? what's an office? ...or solving a workplace challenge that's yet to come. wherever the new world of work takes your business, the world works with servicenow. inner voice (kombucha brewer): i'm dramatically holding this bottle, so the light hits it just right, and people think... wow... ...he knows what he's doing... ...when i'm actually pretty lost with my payroll taxes. intuit quickbooks helps you manage your payroll taxes. cheers. 100% accurate payroll tax calculations guaranteed. trelegy for copd. ♪ birds flyin' high ♪ ♪ you know how i feel ♪ (coughing)

♪ breeze driftin' on by ♪ ♪ you know how i feel ♪ copd may have gotten you here, but you decide what's next. start a new day with trelegy. ♪ ...feelin' good ♪ no once-daily copd medicine has the power to treat copd in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy helps people breathe easier and improves lung function. it also helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy. and save at trelegy.com.

subway's eat fresh refresh has so many new footlongs, here's how they line up. we got the new chicken & bacon ranch, new baja steak & jack, and the new baja chicken & bacon, aka "the smokeshow." save big. order through the app. - your mom's got to go! - she's family. she's using my old spice moisturize with shea butter and she's wearing my robe. mom: ahem ahem ahem we're out. it's 4:00 in new york. one of the most astonishing things about the investigation into the january 6 insurrection is