rockies, seasons change. waters rise and fall. some believe the secrets of cottonwood creek will remain a mystery, forever. mystery, forever this sunday the threat from russia. >> we are ready no matter what happens. >> more russian troops massing on ukraine's border. >> russia's aggression today not only threatened ukraine, it also threatens europe. >> the u.s. sends 3,000 troops to eastern europe. >> we want to make sure we reassure our allies that we're there. >> vladimir putin breaks his silence and says the u.s. is ignoring russia's security concern. >> since he put more troops along the border, i think we should be ready for further

incursions. >> my guest this morning, president biden's national security adviser, jake sullivan. plus pence rebukes trump. >> president trump lost. >> i had no right to overturn the election. >> mike pence responds to donald trump's claims he could have overturned the election. this as the rnc censured liz cheney and adam kinzinger for participating in the january 6th investigation. >> all those for the motion, please say aye. >> and the political riot legitimate political discourse. i'll talk to the president's chief of staff. and the nfl's race problem. >> there's only one black head coach. >> some 20 years after the nfl pledged to do better by nfl coaches, it still looks like the boys club. secretary jeh johnson, amy walter, matthew continetti and

helene cooper, pentagon correspondent for "the new york times." welcome to "meet the press." >> announcer: this is "meet the press with chuck todd. and a good sunday morning. in 2008 during the summer olympic games in beijing, russian troops invaded neighboring georgia. the then-prime minister of russia vladimir putin declared from beijing war had started. in 2014 russian troops moved into crimea, just days after putin returned from the winter olympics in sochi. now with the winter games underway in beijing and with putin in attendance, the world is left to guess. is putin about to pull the trigger again, this time on ukraine? u.s.' plans for a diplomatic boycott of the games has largely fizzled. and putin found an ally in xi jingping.

they had offered support against the u.s. the two issued a joint statement saying friendship between the two states has no limits. china has offered political support to russia over ukraine, including blocking support at the u.n. security council. our correspondent richard engel has been covering the buildup of military forces. he's on the border of ukraine and russia in eastern ukraine. richard, i think this is a case of watch what they do, not necessarily listen to what russia says. what do you see, richard? >> reporter: we're seeing a massive military buildup. this is unlike anything i've seen since the american 2003 buildup before it launched the war in iraq. i think that's why we're hearing these really dire intelligence assessments coming out from u.s. officials that if there was a war, there could be 50,000 ukranians killed, 25,000 soldiers, 10,000 russian troops,

one to five million refugees internally displaced. these dire warnings are now being heard in ukraine. for the last several days, several weeks, people had been living in a kind of suspended disbelief that maybe this was just russia bluffing, that russia was trying to get some diplomatic advantage. now people are starting to believe this could happen and it could happen potentially imminently. we're starting to see rallies ferment in major cities. we're seeing more and more people signing up for volunteer service. we're hearing more of the fighting spirit when i ask people what they are going to do, and they say, we will fight. we will fight till the end. because this country won't be a walkover, that's why those intelligence estimates are so high for what the cost might be. but ukranians also know that if it comes to fighting, they are going to have to fight russia by themselves, that nato has promised support, it's sending

in some weapons, but at the end of the day, the ukranians will only have their own troops and their own defense systems like these trenches to fight off russia. >> richard engel, like i said, he's on the border of russia and ukraine in eastern ukraine. richard, thank you. joining me now is the national security adviser to president biden, jake sullivan. jake, welcome back to "meet the press." >> thanks for having me. >> let me start with this warning that you guys gave to lawmakers that has now come out, and that is the intensity of the russian military buildup, what they have there. you heard richard's report. many ukranian leaders now see that this appears to be an even bigger threat that they determined. what's your sense of how soon something could happen? >> well, chuck, we're in the window where something could

happen that is a military escalation and invasion of ukraine. it could happen at any time. we believe that the russians have put in place the capabilities to mount a significant military operation into ukraine, and we have been working hard to prepare a response. president biden has rallied our allies, he's reinforced and reassured our partners on the eastern flank, he's provided material support to the ukranians, and he's offered the russians a diplomatic path if that's what they choose instead. but either way, we are ready, our allies are ready, and we're trying to help the ukranian people get ready as well. >> the diplomatic path, what are we willing to negotiate? missile sites, things like that? what are we willing to talk with the russians about? >> we are prepared to sit down with the russians alongside our allies in nato and other partners in europe to talk about issues of mutual concern in european security. and yes, that includes the

placement of certain range systems of missiles. it includes transparency around military exercises. it includes greater capacity to have confidence building and to avoid incidents that could lead to escalation or miscalculation. we've laid all of that out in a paper that we sent to the russians after coordinating it carefully with our allies. that paper is now out in the public view and the world can judge for itself just how serious we are. but what we're not prepared to negotiate are the fundamental principles of security that include the open door for nato for countries that can meet the requirements. >> it seems you have united nato allies and european allies on a response if putin does a full invasion. but the question i have is, if it's not that but it is something else, you know, trying to maybe politically annex parts

of ukraine, things like this, how much more work do you have to do to get european allies ready to have a robust response? >> well, chuck, i'm glad you asked that question, because the russian action could take many forms, including the possibility that they annex the occupied territories in eastern ukraine known as the donbas. or they could take a series of hybrid actions, including cyberattacks, political destabilization, things along those lines. or they could do a full-scale invasion of ukraine. and part of the reason we've been working so intensely over the last few months is not just to prepare for one contingency, but to prepare for all contingencies and to work with our allies and partners on what a response would look like in each of those instances. we believe we have strong alignment with our allies, that we are on the same page when it comes to severe economic consequences and the other forms of pressure that we would impose in response to any kind of russian action that amounts to

aggression and escalation against ukraine. >> how much of a challenge -- europe has not found a way to have independence from russian energy. you could argue they should have spent more time over the last ten years doing that. in the case of germany in some ways, they seem to grow closer to russia. how much does that hinder a unified response that might actually have some teeth? >> we believe that the europeans intend to step up and impose severe costs and consequences. but, again, you've asked a great question because it is true that europe has distance to travel when it comes to weaning themselves off russian gas and diversifying their energy supplies. president biden has directed his team to look to find from other places in the world lng liquefied natural gas, that can be sent to europe and it is not

only in the economic aid, that we can help coordinate the delivery of gas to keep europeans warm through the rest of the winter. that work is well underway, and president biden and chancellor schultz will discuss it further tomorrow when the chancellor is here in washington. >> last week i had senator rob portman, republican senator from ohio on, who i know has basically been in coordination in some ways on ukraine policy with the administration. and he said to me, it's his understanding in private that germany has given the united states assurance, that if putin invades ukraine, the pipeline is done, that they are willing to suspend the pipeline. but they won't say that publicly. will the german chancellor say that publicly with the president tomorrow? >> i'll let the german chancellor speak for himself, but the biden administration, at president biden's direction, has been absolutely simply clear on this.

if russia invades ukraine, one way or another, nord stream ii will not move forward. >> what's the definition of invasion? >> well, president biden has spoken to the fact that if a russian tank or a russian troop moves across the border, that's an invasion. that is an invasion, and the result of that from our perspective would be the imposition of severe economic consequences. >> and have the germans given you that reassurance on nord stream ii, that that's an invasion? that anything that crosses the border is an invasion and therefore suspends that pipeline? >> i'm not going to get into the diplomatic discussions with the germans, but what i can tell you flatly and plainly one more time, one way or another, if that happens, nord stream ii will not move forward. >> i'd like to ask you about the olympics. we tried to organize a diplomatic boycott.

nine other countries joined us, not even the entire g-7. we've talked about germany. we know why they're not perhaps on board here. france, either. how disappointing is it that this is the west, these are the ten countries that seem to prioritize human rights, while many of our other allies apparently prioritize economic ties more than human rights? >> well, chuck, i have to say that the premise of your question is not quite right. the united states did not go around the world knocking on every country's door trying to, quote, unquote, organize a diplomatic boycott. what we did was come out and make a statement of principle about what we, the united states, were going to do. we were not going to send an official delegation to these games because of the grave human rights abuses of the chinese government. we did have some countries join us in that. other countries made a different decision. but if you look at the broad level of alignment with our

european partners, with the quad, with our asian allies, you can see like-minded democracy coming together on a range of challenges that china poses, whether it's in the realm of military aggression or in the realm of commission coercion, or in the realm of human rights. the quad has all laid that out and we stand a year into this administration stronger with our allies when it comes to china than at any other point in recent memory. >> would china be in line for any punishment if they helped russia get around sanctions? >> well, the sanctions we're going to impose will, in fact, have an impact on china, because they will go at the financial system of russia, which, of course, engages the chinese economy as well, and so china will have a choice whether or not it complies with the sanctions, or if it chooses not to comply, then of course there are penalties that accrue to that. but fundamentally, from our perspective, we believe that beijing will end up owning some of the costs of a russian

invasion of ukraine and that they should calculate that as they consider their engagements with the russian government over the next couple of weeks. >> do you have any reason to believe that xi advised putin not to do this? >> i don't have any direct evidence that he did one way or the other. i would note something interesting, though. in the more than 5,000-word statement that russia and china released when president putin visited beijing on friday, the word "ukraine" was not mentioned. >> jake sullivan, the national security adviser for president biden. i appreciate you coming on, sharing the administration's perspective. >> thank you. when we come back, former vice president mike pence rebukes donald trump saying pence could have overturned the election. i'll speak to chief of staff marc short who was with pence in the capitol during the january 6 riot. the capitol du ring the january 6 riot

welcome back. two events on friday helped

accent february 6th and the after math. first they censored liz cheney and adam kinzinger for january 6. later former vice president mike pens said trump was wrong when they said pens could have overturned the 2020 election. more as emerged on mr. trump's efforts to stay in power after losing the election. >> president trump is wrong. i had no right to overturn the election. >> former vice president mike pence on friday, responding to donald trump's false claim that he could have rejected the electoral college results. pence also breaking with trump on the insurrection itself. >> january 6 was a dark day in the history of the united states capitol. >> as the national archives announced, it is preparing to release its records to the committee next month. the january 6 committee has issued dozens of subpoenas, interviewed 400 witnesses and

obtained over 50,000 documents. donald trump is now defending the insurrectionists. >> if i win, we will treat those people from january 6 fairly. we will treat them fairly. if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons. >> among his recent revelations about overturning the election, donald trump reportedly asked his lawyer, rudy giuliani, if they could take care of voting machines in swing states. >> he needs to seize all dominion and voting machines we have across the country. >> a question he also raised with attorney general bill barr regarding the justice department. >> i see no basis now for seizing machines by the federal government. >> in georgia a criminal probe is heating up centered on the phone call trump placed to secretary of state brad raffensperger on january 2nd, demanding he produce more votes in a state joe biden had won.

>> i just want to find 11,780 votes. so tell me, brad, what are we going to do? >> we realize we're coming to a place that there are enough people that will require a subpoena for us to speak to or for us to be able to get information, and so, yes, we're headed into phase 2. >> in addition mr. trump had intended to deploy a slate of alternate electors. they were used by giuliani and lawyer john eastman as they developed a strategy intended to exploit ambiguities in the electoral counteract. >> you should designate a slate of electors. >> on january 4, trump met with giuliani and eastman, laying out steps pence could take to delay certification and keep trump in power. in effect, a blueprint for a coup. with mr. trump squeezed, his allies are hitting back.

on january 6, the rnc issued a statement saying its members strongly condemned the violence, calling it an attack on our country and its founding principles. but now -- >> all those for the motion, respond by saying aye. >> the republican party declared friday that the january 6th attack was simply ordinary citizens engaging in political discourse. joining me now is marc short. he's mr. pence's former chief of staff. mr. short was with the vice president at the capitol january 6 and he recently testified before the january 6 committee. mr. short, welcome to "meet the press." >> thank you for having me. >> let's start with your former boss, former vice president pence. in fairness to him, he has said something similar in the past but he chose to give a big platform to this this week. why? >> well, chuck, i think as you mentioned vice president pence has commented on january 6, and he extended those remarks to the

federal society primarily because the president's comments about the vice president had the ability to overturn the election, i think, merited response. of course, there is nothing in the 12th amendment or the electoral count act that would give that authority, and no vice president has used that authority, and no one would certainly want kamala harris to be able to say she's going to reject votes from texas or wyoming or any other state head into 2024. >> why did he stop there? it's been a year. there is no evidence out there, this was a free and fair election, the trump party lost. why didn't he say that? >> many people had concerns about the election -- >> still? >> because of covid. >> you could disagree on the election law. >> i think there were significant concerns about what transpired in pennsylvania, what transpired in wisconsin, what

transpired in georgia when you said you had election officials overruling state officials and saying we'll keep the ballot open to allow universal access and mail-in balloting. at the same time the constitution is clear what that process is. you're afforded a chance to challenge, you're afforded a chance to bring legal challenges, but at the time of the electoral college meeting on december 14th, at that point the process is concluded. that's why the constitution wanted the states the ability to certify elections and not for the federal government. it's very clear, in fact, in the federalist papers. they warned about the threat of a federal government having that sort of authority. >> do you believe joe biden was a legitimately elected president? >> i believe joe biden is duly elected president of the united states, yes. i think there was significant concerns about the process of that election that's going to create a cloud, but i think, chuck, at the same time, to your point, the campaign had opportunities to bring that evidence up on december 14 and didn't.

so i think at this point you have to assume he was duly elected and the reality was there was not enough significant fraud that was presented to overturn any of those state elections. >> doesn't it say a lot a year later that actually the more evidence has shown that no fraud happened? doesn't that even reinforce this even more a year later? >> as i said, i think there are significant concerns and i'm glad the states are looking to rectify it, chuck, but the president was duly elected. >> i want to go back to the time of january 6. you guys were under a lot of pressure. when did you conclude that all of the potential allegations that were out there, that they were baseless? >> i'm not sure that all the allegations out there were baseless, chuck. i'm not confident of that. but i think the reality, again, we're asking what is the constitutional role of the vice president of the united states? we're governed by rule of laws, not rule of men. the reality is he was following what the constitution afforded the vice president in the 12th amendment and the electoral counteract. he was doing his duty under the

oath to the constitution to defend it. >> had he gotten legal advice that said, well, you can't decide which electoral votes are yes and no, but you can adjourn this session and delay things? had he gotten legal advice to do that? was the vice president considering it? >> no, chuck. i think, unfortunately, the president had many bad advisers who were basically snake oil salesmen giving him random and novel ideas as to what the vice president could do. but our office research recognized that couldn't happen. >> did he have bad advisers or was the former president seeking bad advice? >> i don't know the answer to that question. i think honestly he did get a lot of bad advice. it was not something that the vice president from the very beginning did counsel the president, and saying i don't think i have that authority. i'll always look at something you want to send our way, but he never had that authority. >> when he asked you to meet with john eastman and you met him first, why did you meet him

before the vice president did? >> i actually didn't. i met them after they had the oval office meetings so we had a separate meeting between jacob, myself and john eastman. >> what were you trying to get clarified? >> i think at that point there had been a push to say, would you simply reject ballots? at some point it became crystal clear that that was not something that the vice president knew he had the authority to do, there was a switch about sending it back to the states in the last 24 hours. >> did the president ever ask his own white house counsel if any of this was constitutional? >> i think you would have to ask them that. >> did you guys ask the white house counsel about any of this? >> i think greg provided us great counsel. >> was there any point that the vice president was looking for -- because in previous reports it says he wanted to look for a way to show empathy or sympathy for those who wanted to object. was he looking for a way to delay the process at any point? >> no. >> so there was never once

someone was pressuring him? he was just looking for better words to choose? is that a fair way to look at it? >> no, i think the vice president was clear from day one that he didn't have the authority. again, he was proud to work with this president, doing so many great things for our country, whether it was securing the border, addressing china, so if he was asked, he would have looked at it, but it never meant that he thought he had that authority. >> going to january 6, when your colleague, mr. jacob, gets the text or e-mail from mr. eastman and he essentially said the vice president is not going to do this? what was his response? >> i don't think he was going to worry what john eastman was saying but in the heat of the

moment, the vice president was concerned with how do we get back in and complete the work we were assigned to do for the day. mccarthy and schumer were saying, how do we get back in tonight? so the world sees that our democracy is functioning properly. >> was the vice president present that day, january 6? >> yes, he was in the capitol. i had a conference with the chief of staff. >> was the president communicating with him at any point in time? >> was he communicating with anyone in that period? >> i think he was communicating to keith kellogg who communicated with mark meadows. >> communicated what? >> that we were safe and secure in the location that we were in. >> what did you see that day? >> from the time that the president was evacuated, i came back to his office on the senate floor, and at that point, secret service had tried to move him twice.

the vice president was resolute and said, i'm not going to let the united states see us flee the capitol and i'm staying. but at the same time head of security said, there is glass door here. i can't protect you. at that point they evacuated us to a secure location in the back of the capitol. at one point they wanted to put the vice president in a motorcade. but he said, that's not a visual i want the world to see at the capitol. then we got back together and completed the work for the night. >> did you see that from vice president pence? the comments about hang mike pence? or after the fact, but i mean then. >> i heard it in the moment. >> what was your reaction when you heard it? >> i think, again, there was a sense of tragic day, a sense of loss, but also a sense of --

sense of pride in what we had accomplished for four years and it would be an unfortunate taint on the record, and people we never recognized traveling in rallies across the country, and it's a shame that 74 million people who voted for the pence record was tarnished. the media wants to display it as all thugs at the capitol that day. >> did you see a lot of legitimate political discourse that day? >> i did not see a lot of legitimate political discourse. but in talking to some members of the rnc, i think there was concern that there were people who were peacefully protesting who have been pulled into this, with more public progress cuse by the january 6th committee and feel like they're being unfairly treated. >> let me ask you about a few other things that have come to light. did you hear anything about seizing voting machines? >> did not, no. >> nobody tried to bring you into these conversations? what about the alternative slate of electors? did anybody tell you they were organizing alternative slate of electors?

>> there were discussions about alternate slates and letters that we had received but when we had the conversation with the parliamentarian, she made it clear that every year they receive notes every year from random americans saying here's my slate of elect. electors. unless they're certified by the state, they're candidly meaningless. i didn't put much stock into that. >> if you view that as cooperation, i view that as following law. >> so if the former vice president is subpoenaed, he's going to follow the law? >> i think it's difficult to subpoena a former vice president to talk about private conversations he had with the president of the united states. it's never happened before, and i think we have significant concerns about the committee, chuck.

the committee truly is not really a bipartisan committee. when it was set up, it was supposed to have -- >> whose fault is that? mitch mcconnell? >> when speaker pelosi rejected kevin mccarthy's appointees, i think it made it a much more partisan venture. you know as well as i do that nancy pelosi rejected jim jordan from serving on that committee based on the basis that they had not voted to certify the election. think about that for a second, chuck. the chairman of the committee voted not to certify in 2004 bush/cheney. other members -- >> the senate republicans shut this down. that's why we don't have a bipartisan committee. >> there was going to be a bipartisan committee as well in the house, chuck. and kevin mccarthy was not afforded the opportunity to put his five people on because she

decided to reject jim jordan and banks. >> so you don't want them to have an impartial review? >> i think it will because it has taken on a more partisan committee. >> would pence serve as donald trump's running mate if asked ever again. >> i'm not going to try to answer a hypothetical. i think mike pence, every time he has been considered to, do he has taken the time to pray, where is our family called to serve and what is the best decision. >> he said he will always try to have a relationship with the former president. is that relationship severed? >> i don't know if it's severed. they remain proud of what they i think the vice president remains proud of the accomplishments over the four years. >> nothing that happened has made him question the character about the former president? >> i think he's been very clear about january 6 and the disagreements he has with the former president.

>> maybe a disagreement on issues or -- >> i think he's been very clear to say he believes the president was wrong. he believes the president was given bad advice on the day. it does not take away from what they accomplished working together for four years for the american people. >> does he think donald trump should be a leader for the american people? >> i hope the former president moves forward. i hope he decides what to do to fight inflation, what are we going to do to secure our border. we should be looking forward and not back. >> so you think it will be a mistake if he looks forward? >> i think it will be a mistake. i think our party should be looking forward and not backward. >> thanks for coming on. >> good to see you. when we come back, the growing rift in the republican party. the growing rift in the republican party.

♪ this is how we do it.. ♪ turns out, montell jordan knows how to do almost everything. and it turns out the general is a quality insurance company that's been saving people money for nearly 60 years. for a great low rate,

and nearly 60 years of quality coverage, go with the general.

national security secretary jeh johnson helene cooper and amy walter. paralympic correspondent for "the new york times." "the n ew york times. johnson >> what have you learned? >> it's a tight rope that republicans are forced to walk and will continue to be forced to walk at least for the conceivable future. there is this theory you can have trump without the trump imp, and whatever comes next will look more like trump in terms of who is the next leader of the party if it is not donald trump. it will look like him more than a mitt romney or a liz cheney. i think that's true. the question is how many times will americans have to go back and pretend that january 6 was not as significant as it was or agree with or have to answer for it was legitimate political discourse, or was this a free and fair election, was this legitimate. that puts the party back firmly,

even if they have not, even as much as they have tried to, they have not been able to cut from donald trump. >> it is amazing to me that the rnc can label january 6 legitimate political discourse, and it's probably true that there is a lot of republican base that will accept that. i mean, to most of us that's the equivalent of saying the world trade center didn't collapse on 9/11. what's interesting is the rank and file seems to be moving closer and closer to trump's point of view while people like mike pence are moving away from him. what the former vice president said legally was immaterial, we all know he didn't have the power to reject the election result, but he's obviously become more assertive in his political rhetoric, moving away from the trump base. >> matthew -- and maybe i'm squinting too hard to see it. but it seems like the more donald trump squeals about this, the more there are people going,

we have to push back. we got to stop this electoral counting. even the rnc tried to water down, and then they came up with me, a stain that they don't know how to get rid of. legitimate political discourse it seems like it will haunt them, the rnc for decades. >> you can see it from this program. you can contrast that statement from the video on january 6. i think the republicans believe every minute they spend talking about 2020, january 6, is an opportunity lost. you heard it from marc short. they want to talk about inflation, they want to talk about masks, they want to talk about the border. unfortunately the person who is making them look in the rearview mirror is president trump, and he wants to force the issue, i think, to the detriment of the republican party. i would say to his own detriment, too. people forget trump had a forward-looking agenda when he ran for president in 2016. all he cares about now is revenge. >> it's pretty clear.

there's no coherency to it. >> it's really sad. i've been thinking about this a lot in the last few weeks. as a reporter i've been focused on russia and ukraine, and there's always been this expectation of american exceptionalism when you look at other societies where you see strong men rulers, and you see a society accepting things that from the outside we see as completely crazy. and now i don't have this feeling of american exceptionalism anymore because i think if what happened on january 6 and the reaction by the republican party shows that we are as easily led as anybody else. >> jeh, it's funny, and i'm going to draw a long line here. but i can't help but wonder our inability to get the world to follow us on a diplomatic boycott on china on something that's fundamental on something we believe should be freedom

bigger than financial ties. it makes me think maybe the example of our democracy is not so good, so why are we following you guys? it's hard not to see that. >> >> following up on january 6, the first thing that i thought of after january 6th, following up on what you said, we used to say peaceful transfer of power. peaceful transfer. >> it's different. >> it's different. we can no longer say that. i actually think that the situation with the olympics is somewhat unique. i believe that our response to ukraine has actually been a nice reminder of how coalitions led by the united states can respond effectively. >> assuming we're effective. assuming the response is effective. >> as we sit here, it does seem as though vladimir putin is on the defensive at the moment. >> i think that's fair. >> and the coalition, i believe, has served as a multiplier effect on the pressure that can be put on him as opposed to going it alone. >> i guess, matthew, the question, though, going back to the issue inside the republican

party is, you do have mitch mcconnell that is sort of the bill belichick focused forward. kevin mccarthy doesn't have that luxury. it's like he has to appease the republican party. it's going to cause a lot of problems. >> it's going to cause a lot of problems, especially if the republicans take back congress which appears to be what they're on the path of doing, and think about the republican party agenda. the last time they put out a platform was 2016. we get legitimate political discourse but we don't get a platform, we don't get an agenda. >> you just wrote another one. >> it's the truth, you know? so you get into a position where the republicans are in power next year, all these fights are going to come out into the fore if you don't have substantive policy to rally behind. >> they do have substantive policy, theoretically, if they say we're going to do the opposite of what democrats and

biden is doing. which is what every republican in the mitch mcconnell mode is trying to talk about. but many of the republicans who are going to come to congress, remember, they are coming because not only were they endorsed by donald trump, but because they sought out that stamp of approval and feel as if it is their job to take that in to congress to not simply be a voice against whatever policies. >> i want to spend this last minute pivoting a little more to ukraine in this respect. the u.s. has wanted us to take their word on a lot of allegations they've made against the russians here. it seems as if this is a weird stance to take when we don't like when the russians do the disinformation game. we need to have a little more trust to verify here, and they seem to be on the defensive. why aren't they being more forthcoming? >> they would tell you they're not being more forthcoming because they're trying to

protect intelligence assets. the scene at the state department briefing in last week between matt lee, the ap and ned price, he's great, but he was completely right. and matt saying, read what i said, you know. that doesn't necessarily work -- >> that's not evidence. >> we're entering a new phase right now of information warfare that the biden administration is trying to wage against a master in that game, which is vladimir putin. but, you know, they haven't done that poorly so far. >> well, there you go. we're going to pause here. when we come back, the nfl and race. it's been nearly two decades since the nfl promised to have increased minority hiring. so why is there only one black head coach in the nfl right now? stay with us. stay with us turns out, michael buffer speaks like that all the time.

and it turns out the general is a quality insurance company that's been saving people money for nearly 60 years. for a great low rate, and nearly 60 years of quality coverage, go with the general. new vicks convenience pack. for a great low rate, and nearly 60 years dayquil severe for you... vicks super c for me. vicks super c is a daily supplement with vitamin c and b vitamins to help energize and replenish. dayquil severe is a max strength daytime, coughing, power through your day, medicine. new from vicks.

welcome back. data download time. what should have been an exciting time for the nfl. leading up to the super bowl it's become a time of talking about ranks. miami dolphins brian flores filed a lawsuit about diversity. alleges racial discrimination in the league's hiring process. this is a discrepancy between who calls the plays and who

executes them. this is a case where the numbers just don't lie. obviously this is the makeup of color. 70% of the league is made up of players of color. it's pretty clear. it's pretty clear. now look at the distinction of head coaching. of the players that are of color, three out of 32 head coaches right now are of color. 26 of the current head coaches, there are still some vacancies belong to white men. let's look at why this is. in the last ten years, the nfl has tried. they've had the rooney rule. the league has tried to encourage these owners to essentially do better. they've not required it, they've kind of coerced. well, they haven't done so well. among head coaches in the last decade, there's been 51 white coaches, just 11 of color. among general managers, the ratio is just as poor. 31 overall, just six of color over the last decade. if you look on the coordinator level, among offensive coordinators in particular, it's a terrible ratio, and guess

what, the offensive coordinators are suddenly getting all of the head coaching hires these days. slightly better among defensive coordinators. still though, two to one basically white to nonwhite whel when it comes to those. and then look at coaches overall, one of the problems here for coaches of color is they don't have family ties in the league. of the 792 coaches, basically more than 10% of them have relatives, are related to other coaches in the nfl. and look at head coaches. a third of head coaches are related to other coaches. as you know, one of the coaches is the grandson -- in the super bowl this year is the grandson of a former nfl coach. when we come back, the nfl just pledged to do better on this score again. is there any reason to believe them this time? stay with us. stay with us or there... start here. walgreens makes it easy to stay protected wherever you go. schedule your free covid-19 booster today.

do you struggle to fall asleep and stay asleep? qunol sleep formula combines 5 key nutrients that can help you fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer, and wake up refreshed. the brand i trust is qunol.

welcome back. baseball may claim it's the national pastime, but the nfl is these days. jeh, look, i think the nfl's

popularity means we believe it needs to culturally be with or ahead of the country, not so far behind. but the nfl continually looks like it's much further behind, really, than any other sport. >> first i need to be a little careful here, because my law firm represents the nfl in certain matters. when i look at those numbers, first of all, the most interesting statistic you put up was the familiar connections between and among coaches. i had not seen that before. but when i see these numbers, first thing i think of is 1973. i'm old enough to remember when the league, all the quarterbacks, were white. 1973-'74 was huge in that all of a sudden the pittsburgh steelers had a black quarterback, joe gillum from tennessee state. it's black history month, and today there are something like ten black starting quarterbacks

in the nfl. progress can be agonizingly slow sometimes around this issue. >> you know, amy, the league has been under pressure before, and they've whiffed on these things, yet they get away with it because they keep making money and the game is so popular. the league put out a statement admitting you can't look at one black head coach and say they've succeeded. so they're admitting it. i think they have an ownership problem. >> the owners -- are there any owners of color? it's all white owners all of a certain age. it also looks like -- >> robert smith is among those that might bid for the denver broncos. that could be an interesting development. >> look at the nba who also most of its players are black players, yet 40-something percent of its coaches are black. so it is possible to do this. there isn't, like, oh, gosh, it's just too hard to get a pipeline. there is a pipeline there, it's

just there is not the incentive, as you pointed out. you have to be very intentional about this. intentionality isn't just putting out a statement saying, we have this rooney rule, so go ahead and interview them. intentionality says, no, we're going to set metrics. we're going to make sure that at the end of each one of these interviews or at the end of each season we're going to assess this, and that the owners themselves will self-assess and be intentional. that's just not happening. >> it's easy to pile on roger goodell. people love to jump on him. you could say he's been weak in the way he handles it, but he needs to say, come on, guys. we have to get better. now you have to do two interviews, we'll give you a draft pick. they didn't get the hint. >> no, and the nfl, because of the way they're structured, goodell only has so much leverage over these owners, and at the end of the day, it's the owners that make the decisions and the gms who they also hire. it's going to be a personal

decision unless you find a way to leverage and have more black coaches, i'm very pessimistic about the chances. the other thing we haven't talked about is the coaching entries. you have one coach and then they hire all the assistants. >> but with the tampa bay buccaneers, that didn't seem to happen. two coordinators that didn't get hired, two african american, after they won the super bowl last year, so the nfl has a lot to overcome before they have more diversity in the coaching. >> you were comparing the situation, saying boy, it's there too, and the premiere league has an nfl owner in it. >> they do. the u.k. has more black coaches. this is not just about football, basketball is a little different, but this is a symbol of american society where the

wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of white people, and the only reason why this is so glaringly obvious with the nfl is because we're watching it every sunday and monday and because so many of the players are black. >> at the end of the day -- go ahead, amy. >> i was saying that's exactly right. it's a structural issue that is not just about one way. >> i'll be very curious to see how the denver broncos sale goes, because that is an opportunity at a minimum for them to show at least symbolic acknowledgment of this inequality issue. that's all we have today. thank you for watching. enjoy the olympics, and remember, if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." "meet the press.press."

u.s. troops land in poland to reinforce nato ally, as the white house warns that russia could invade ukraine quote any day now. the question, is diplomacy still an option? plus, pushback against the republican national committee after it censures two members for serving on the house committee investigating january 6th. describing the attack on the capitol as quote legitimate political discourse, the question is, where does this lead the republican party? and a state that had some of the most stringent covid mandates will no longer require masks in schools. the question is, will