putin will authorize an invasion of ukraine before the end of the winter? and what is your message to the roughly 30,000 americans who are currently in ukraine? do you think they should leave the country? >> well, i've had discussions, numerous discussions with the russians and particularly with putin. i don't know that he's even made -- i don't know that he knows what he's going to do. and i think he has to realize that it would be a gigantic mistake for him to move on ukraine, the impact on europe and the rest of the world would be devastating. and he would pay a heavy price. i have been very, very straight forward and blunt with president putin both on the phone and in person. we will impose the most severe sanctions that have ever been imposed -- economic sanctions -- and there will be a lot to pay for that down the road. it will affect others as well. it will affect us somewhat.

it'll affect the europeans. but it will have profound impact on his economy. and i -- but i don't know -- i know that he is in a position now to be able to invade almost assuming that the ground is frozen above kyiv, he has the capacity to do that. what he is going to do i don't know and i don't think anybody knows but him. >> to the americans currently in ukraine should they leave the country? >> i think it would be wise to leave the country. i don't mean our -- i don't mean -- i'm not talking about our diplomatic corps. i'm talking about americans who are there. i hate to see them get caught in the crossfire if in fact they did invade and there is no need for that and if i were they, if i had anyone there, i'd say, leave. >> to chancellor scholz, can you outline specific steps germany is taking to reduce its energy dependence on russia? what do you say to those who suggest that german reliance on

russian gas is limiting europe's options for how to respond to the crisis in ukraine? >> translator: thank you very much for raising that question, because it gives me the opportunity to address a topic that's important to me. one good news, maybe, within its strategy on fighting man made climate change, germany has decided in a very short period of time to phase out of the use of oil and gas very soon and by 2045 germany will have a carbon neutral economy as one of the strongest economies of the world. and with regard to these energies, we often think of heating at home and driving a car but we are talking about industrial production, producing steel, chemical substances, cement, and changing these industrial processes and reorganizing such systems is what we have planned. so this year we will continue to

take far reaching decisions that will help us to use more wind energy, offshore wind energy, onshore wind energy, and solar energy and expand the capacities, expand the grids, and have a strategy for germany but also worldwide on the use of hydrogen, which is a central element for us to change our industrial processes that are using oil and gas right now. the industry is willing to be onboard. we're doing this together with them but it will probably be the biggest industrial modernization project in germany in 100 years with very good prospects that we will develop new technologies that other partners in the world can use as well. and this will help us fight climate change. and by the way, the energy mix today we are talking about one-quarter of our energy that is linked to gas and only part of that gas comes from russia. a big part comes from norway or

the netherlands. and, of course, it is very important to us that we develop an infrastructure that will give us the opportunity to have all options available and react if needed so you don't have to be concerned. there are some who should be concerned who see themselves maybe too much as a deliverer of such resources. because we are focusing on renewable energies. we will go down that path and make sure that this is the profitable future. >> mr. president, i would like to ask you a question about lng. germany and europe are much more

dependent on russian gas than other regions of the world. you promised european allies to help with lng but this is more expensive and not available in volumes that might be needed to replace russian gas. i would like to know from you how you would help europeans in case of a conflict with russia. is this an empty promise or what can you really do? what can you offer? in addition, the u.s. are buying oil from russia worth billions of dollars and i would like to know whether these transfers are also part of the sanctions package against russia. mr. chancellor, liquified natural gas, there is a big controversy in germany about fracking gas. how far is lng even a real replacement or is it also with a view to the climate club you intend to found is it really an alternative to russian pipeline

gas? >> let me respond. first of all, we are looking at opportunities to make up for lost gas lng from russia. we are under way trying to see what we can do to do that, dealing with our friends around the world as well. we think we can make up a significant portion of it that would be lost. what everybody forgets here is russia needs to be able to sell that gas and sell that oil. russia relies, a significant part of russia's budget, it is the only thing they really have to export. if, in fact, it is cut off, they're going to be hurt very badly as well and it is of consequence to them as well. this is not just a one way street. and so we are looking at what we could do to help compensate for loss of, immediate loss of gas in europe if it occurs. and that's what we've been working on for sometime now.

>> translator: i can confirm we work closely with the united states of america and joe biden and i are working closely together as well. we are prepared for all kinds of situations and that's part of what we do when we say we prepare sanctions. that means we need to be able to react at any time, and this is happening. with regard to the use of lng, i can say that the biggest volume of lng used across the world is gas and that is part of the debate. concerning a long term perspective i already outlined what this is about. we will modernize our economy and where gas is being used switch to hydrogen. this will be a process that will be fast -- will happen faster than many might imagine today and will create a bright future for all of us.

>> thank you very much. appreciate it. >> do you still believe. [ inaudible question ] >> the answer is yes. >> how? >> hi there everyone. you have been listening to president biden at a joint news conference with the chancellor of germany olaf scholz where the two allies presented a united front, very strong united front against russia, promising severe consequences if vladimir putin invades ukraine. the president saying an invasion would be moving troops or tanks across the border into ukraine. also at one point saying that if an invasion takes place the united states will bring an end to the nord stream 2 gas pupline russia relies on to sell gas to

europe. let's bring in our nbc white house correspondent mike memoli who has been watching with us. if anybody was looking for any daylight between the germans and americans they certainly did not get it from this news conference. this was as united of a message from the two nato allies as one could imagine. the german chancellor not specifically talking about nord stream 2 but the president forcibly saying severe sanctions or cutting off that pipeline from operating would go into effect the german chancellor saying germany and the united states and nato are absolutely united and there would be severe sanctions on russia if an an investigation takes place. >> reporter: yeah. that's right, ayman, obviously headlines heading into this, the first since chancellor scholz taking over two months ago. the perception was germany was the weak link to present a determined united front to russia to deter them from invasion so every effort was

made very clearly by president biden and also chancellor scholz to say there was no daylight between them. that they were fully united on what was required in terms of sanctions and other measures going forward should russia invade ukraine. i think there were two headlines as i heard it listening to this news conference. one is president biden saying when asked if american citizens in ukraine should leave. he said it would be wise for them to leave the country. he specifically said he wasn't talking about american diplomats but certainly significant to hear president biden saying he has concerns about americans, citizens being in the crossfire should russia invade. the other interesting note was president biden also saying that he still believes frankly that russian president vladimir putin has not made up his mind about what to do here. he clearly used every opportunity to make it clear the range of sanctions the u.s. on its part was willing to take. as we step back and look at this meeting i think it speaks to

biden's approach to foreign policy and the limits to that. he's always said all politics is personal including foreign policy. in chancellor scholz he has somebody he only just met. he met him actually in october at the g20 conference in rome when then chancellor merkel was introducing scholz who was expected to take over to her allies, to germany's allies as sort of a get to know you basis. but obviously as biden is working to understand the new chancellor's limitations, his own domestic political pressures, limits on what they might be able to commit, this is a new relationship just taking shape. as it relates to president putin, biden has tried to establish the same kind of rapport, putin is probably the world leader he may know short of xi jinping as well as anybody or thinks he has worked with that long but putin is obviously somebody who defies efforts to make that relationship a real one. and so president biden flatly, bluntly stating he doesn't know what putin is doing and isn't sure putin knows himself just yet. >> mike, stay with us. also listening with us was msnbc

political analyst and former senator claire mccaskill. good to have you with us. let's pick up on that point mike memoli was talking about, and that was the advice from the president that it would be wise and prudent for american citizens to leave ukraine. also, basically saying we don't know what vladimir putin is going to do. but in terms of the optics of the president warning americans or suggesting it is wise for them to leave, how might that be received overseas? >> well, obviously, the ukrainian president has taken issue with the united states being as strong and as forceful as we have been concerning the build up along the border of both troops and military equipment but i got to tell you i think the main takeaway today is i think part of putin was hoping to mine a division in

nato, whether you have macron maybe setting aside a different view than everyone else and certainly germany because of the liquid natural gas pipeline that they use from russia. i think putin was hoping this might be the moment that he could keep nato from being as unified as they must be. i think today was a blow for putin on two fronts. one, clearly, the german chancellor said unequivocally we are joined with the united states of america and our other allies. we are marching lock step together to do what we need to do to thwart putin and any advances he might make on ukraine. the other thing was that biden said very clearly, if in fact russia does this, then the nord stream pipeline will be no more. well, that is important to russia. that income is important to russia. that investment is important to

russia. so i would chalk this one up as a very positive development for joe biden and his foreign policy vis-a-vis russia today. >> yeah. definitely a united front as we were just describing there and the threats of severe sanctions were as clear as day. mike memoli, thank you very much. claire, please stay with us for the hour. when we come back, we'll switch gears and look at what's happening here domestically. fall out continues among the gop after the censure of adam kinzinger and liz cheney. republicans had to answer the question are they with the ex-president and eager to white wash the insurrection or not? we are going to dive into that. plus, taking a big step toward a return to normalcy. new jersey joining delaware in ending school mask mandates next month. the first of what could be a blue state wave of things to come. new jersey's governor joins us live. and later in the program as the january 6th committee presses on it is becoming more aggressive, hoping to push the justice department toward the ex-president.

the reporters on that story coming up. all that and more when "deadline white house" continues after this break. "deadline white house" continues after this break mize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wooo, yeaa, woooooo and, by switching you could even save 665 dollars. hey tex, can someone else get a turn? yeah, hang on, i'm about to break my own record. yeah. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪ there's a different way to treat hiv. it's once-monthly injectable cabenuva. cabenuva is the only once-a-month, complete hiv treatment for adults who are undetectable. cabenuva helps keep me undetectable. it's two injections, given by a healthcare provider once a month. hiv pills aren't on my mind. i love being able to pick up and go. don't receive cabenuva if you're allergic

to its ingredients or taking certain medicines, which may interact with cabenuva. serious side effects include allergic reactions post-injection reactions, liver problems,...and depression. if you have a rash and other allergic reaction symptoms, stop cabenuva and get medical help right away. tell your doctor if you have liver problems or mental health concerns, and if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. some of the most common side effects include injection site reactions, fever, and tiredness. if you switch to cabenuva, attend all treatment appointments. with once-a-month cabenuva, i'm good to go. ask your doctor about once-monthly cabenuva.

all right. so two events have sent shock waves through washington and put republicans on the spot when it comes to january 6th. one the stunning move by the republican national committee to censure the two republicans that actually sit on the january 6 select committee, liz cheney and adam kinzinger, and declare the events of january 6th to be, quote, legitimate political discourse. yeah. you heard that correct. an event the fbi called a

domestic terror attack in which seven people died and more than 140 police officers were injured and maimed is being called by the rnc legitimate political discourse. and, two, vice president mike pence speaking out and firmly rejecting the former president's claim that he had the power to overturn the election. take a listen to what congressman kinzinger had to say just this morning about the rnc's decision to censure him. >> it's a defining moment for the party and i think it is a defining moment for every member of the house or the senate or, you know, any republican leader. kevin mccarthy obviously who i think asked about this in response he just went after liz and i goes to show he is the weakest leader that has ever frankly existed in that position. and so i think every member of the media, every citizen, every person out there needs to pin down every republican and say, do you side with what the rnc did or do you condemn what they

did? and don't let -- trust me. politicians are really good at skirting around that answer. don't let them on this one. i think it is so defining. >> so republicans have spent the past few days entering this question. are they with the former president and his allies who are eager to white wash the insurrection, or do they acknowledge the reality of what happened on january 6th? for some the answer was clear. >> and you, do you believe january 6th was in any way legitimate political discourse? >> no. it was illegitimate political discourse because it was an assault on the first branch of government. >> when there is a conflict, when the party is taking an approach or saying things that i think are just absolutely wrong, i think it's my responsibility as an alaskan senator speaking out for alaskans to just speak

the truth. >> here's the thing. others like marco rubio defended the censure resolution. rubio also could not get himself to say that former president trump was wrong to pressure president pence to overturn the election. watch. >> do you agree with mike pence? >> well, if president trump runs for re-election i believe he would defeat joe biden and i don't want kamala harris to have the power as vice president to overturn that election. >> so donald trump was wrong? >> well, as i said i just don't think a vice president has that power because if the vice president has that power -- >> right. was january 6 legitimate political discourse? >> well anybody who committed crimes on january 6 should be prosecuted. if you entered the capitol and you committed acts of violence and you were there to hurt people you should be prosecuted and they are. but the january 6 commission is not the place to do that. that's what prosecutors are supposed to do. this commission is a partisan scam. >> so of course the january 6 select committee isn't prosecuting anyone here. let's be clear about that.

it can only make criminal referrals and it is tasked with investigating the insurrection, which it's doing with dozens of subpoenas and testimonies from hundreds of witnesses. one of those witnesses, mike pence's former chief of staff, who was at the capitol with pence on the 6th, spoke to nbc news about what happened that day. >> describe what you saw that day. >> well, i think that from the time that the vice president was evacuated, i came back up to his office in the suite right off of the senate floor and at that point secret service had tried to move him twice but the vice president was resolute and said, i'm not going to let the free world see us flee in the capitol. and i'm staying. >> did you see legitimate political discourse that day? >> from my front seat i did not see a lot of legitimate political discourse. >> former senator mccaskill is back with us and also with us charlie sikes editor at large of the bulwark, our guests, and

alex wagner contributing writer for the atlantic, cohost of showtime's the circus and excited to announce as of today returning to msnbc as a senior political analyst and fill-in anchor. alex, good to see you back here on the peacock my friend. i want to start with you. the rnc's resolution and the comments by republicans like marco rubio i have to say it's cringe worthy just to watch him try to tiptoe around a yes or no question. but what does that tell us about the gop and, you know, where they stand on an attempt to overturn our election? >> oh, i think january 6 tells us everything we need to know about the gop. it is the party of trump. i think there was a moment maybe in the hours after the riot unfolded that there was some sense that the party would distance itself from the former president, but that has proven to be exactly the opposite. they have wound themselves around him.

he is the party. and this whole dance that you see performing, them performing at this point is a way of threading a very complicated needle. right? you look at the footage of january 6. i did not see anybody offering a peaceful articulation of an opposing viewpoint. i saw men and women brandishing weapons storming the capitol wearing animal skins and defiling the congressional process of certifying an election. and i think every question to a republican about whether or not this was legitimate political discourse should be accompanied by videotape. republicans know it is very difficult to defend the actions of the rioters on january 6 so they would much rather be focused on what they call a partisan hack job that is the january 6 party and the actions of adam kinzinger and liz cheney. this is a way of deflecting attention from the central issue which was, was democracy defiled? was there criminal intent? is this the face of the

republican party? republicans don't want to answer that question. they want to focus on the heretic, the people who are traders to their party, and keep the conversation there on the heads of liz cheney and adam kinzinger and anybody else who dares say what happened there is worth investigating. and that's what we're seeing. they do not want to have to talk about january 6. they know it is complicated and filled with land mines. it is also quite obvious what unfolded. looking ahead to an election season in 2024 this is going to be the litmus test for the national conversation. inside republican politics? it's going to be all talk of rhinos, and the people betraying the cause of trump which is the cause of the gop. >> as evident there by marco rubio trying to tiptoe around that question. defeating to saying trump is going to win in 2024 when that was not even the question. charlie, let me visualize what alex was just saying. i want you to look at this video released by the justice department showing a man danny

rodriguez attacking officer michael fanone with a stun gun. i believe i think he was tasing at one point officer fanone in his neck. it is a simple question. this does not look like legitimate political discourse to me. i know it certainly does not to you. and yet the republicans here are trying to be ambiguous about it. >> yeah. and they want to be able to finesse this and avoid it and this has made it that much harder. mike pence's comments make it harder. this catastrophic blunder by the rnc makes it more difficult. look, this is a series. there's been a cascading series of blunders from the republicans on january 6. you know, their refusal to stand up against the big lie. their refusal after january 6 to hold donald trump accountable. their decision to block a nonpartisan commission to investigate january 6th. kevin mccarthy's decision to pull republicans off the

committee. all of this in service of showing their loyalty to donald trump. so they bought the ticket and they're now taking a ride. they become increasingly invested in revising, doing revisionist history of the insurrection. i mean, what you saw on friday was the republican national committee fully embracing the insurrection, white washing it, turning it from as you just saw, this violent attack on the u.s. capitol. somehow into a peaceful protest of people who were legitimately protesting the election. this is not where the republican party wants to be in the midterms, but they've made this choice. and donald trump as alex points out -- donald trump is going to insist that they continue to play this over and over and over again. but i also think that adam kinzinger makes a great point. i just finished doing a podcast with him. every single republican politician in the country needs to be asked.

do you agree with mike pence or with donald trump? do you support the censure of adam kinzinger or liz cheney or don't you? you had a lot of flop sweat from marco rubio because these are tough questions but the question of pence or trump is a yes or no question and i think it is going to be very difficult for republicans to dance their way around it which is of course what they desperately want to do. >> it is actually an easy question if you have moral clarity on what you are supposed to say about the future of this country. >> yes. >> claire, i'm not a politician. i've never made a political ad in my life. i am looking ahead to 2022 and i see these words, legitimate political discourse, and i see michael fanone being tased with a stun gun and all i'm thinking is the rnc just handed democrats a political gift. why isn't the dnc going to run an ad in every single district with the words "legitimate political discourse" over that video and others?

>> i think you'll see those ads. i think those ads are coming. but i think it is important to remember here that the fight for control of congress is not going to be waged in bright red places that marco rubio is busy cowtowing to because he still has some fantasy he is going to be president some day. and it's not going to be in bright blue places where everyone is convinced of the seriousness of what donald trump did to our democracy with his encouragement of the insurrection. and the big lie. it's going to be won or lost in places where there are people that voted for barack obama and donald trump. those voters are who the committee needs to focus on communicating with. those voters are going to be the ones to decide whether mitch mcconnell is going to be in charge of the senate. the guy who blocked a bipartisan consideration as charlie pointed out of january #ofth and all its

implications. the only reason this is not even more bipartisan than clearly liz cheney and adam kinzinger represent, is because the republicans didn't want it to be. they didn't want that kind of investigation. they didn't want that kind of look. so now this committee has to really focus on how they communicate with the voters who are going to decide the midterms and ultimately 2024. it is not going to be just by subpoenaing more witnesses. >> right. >> or just convincing everyone who's already convinced. they have to convince some new folks of the seriousness of what happened. >> what is the message to those voters that they should be communicating? >> well, a couple things. there is a consistency of message that needs to come about, frankly, about the successes in the economy the democrats represent, a record number of jobs being created. there needs to be work on the price of groceries and gas. and there needs to be a communication of the seriousness

of the evidence around january 6th. we have to figure out a way to get information to the voters other than the places that folks normally gravitate to because everyone in those places agrees with them. >> charlie, it seems the republicans are taking a page out of a different playbook. reporting on a shadow investigation by house republicans in part that reads house companies conducting their own investigation of the january 6 insurrection plan to accuse the capitol security apparatus of negligence of the highest levels. that is according to jim banks telling axios that. this is of course in line with what trump has been saying. that he has been blaming pelosi for security lapses. there's no evidence of that whatsoever. that is absolutely false. is this just another attempt by republicans to deflect on what has happened that day? the president and others calling that day faithful protesters exercising first amendment

rights and now saying it is a security lapse by nancy pelosi? >> it is a pathetic attempt at projection. what have they gone through? it was antifa. well, no, it was peaceful protesters, tourists. none of this is going to change the overall narrative. could i just comment on what claire just said because i think she makes a very important point. you make also an important point. the democrats do need to weaponize these comments. think about the last two weeks. just the words that we've gotten from the gop. donald trump used the term overturn the election. he has dangled pardons for the rioters, the people who attacked those cops. the republican national committee refers to that as legitimate political discourse. those ads juxtaposed with the images you just showed are deadly. to basically say, look. this is what donald trump is saying. he is promising to pardon them. he is threatening mass unrest if he is held accountable for all of this. he wanted mike pence to overturn

the election. you know, enough is enough. that message, if the democrats don't push that message in every single swing district it will be a case of political malpractice. >> betsy, the january 6 select committee has been exploring the security lapses. what do we know about that aspect of their investigation and if there is any validity to it? >> we know there absolutely were security lapses in the lead up to january 6. capitol police admitted there were things they certainly could have done better and they've made a whole host of security changes in the wake of the attack to try to make sure they were much more strongly postured in case something like this happens again. we also know the u.s. intelligence community really failed in the lead up to january 6th. we know the fbi received intelligence related to the fact that far right extremists were literally talking in public on social media about breaking into the capitol building. we know the fbi had the warnings. i have obtained the warnings and

i know the fbi got them. there still wasn't enough security around the capitol building to keep those people from doing what they publicly said days before they were going to do. we know that this is a concern that the select committee takes seriously. we also know the select committee is looking at the failure of the national guard to reach the capitol building to be deployed there for several hours while that demented violent attack was ongoing. what i reported last week ryan mccarthy the army secretary on the day of the attack quietly answered questions from select committee investigators. a separate memo i got from a person who was very senior in the d.c. national guard, the person who wrote the memo, that memo has been shared with the select committee. that memo we obtained said that mccarthy, the committee spoke to, was unreachable for much of the day on january 6. the point is, what the select committee is looking at is really expansive. they're looking at a whole

basket of topics that are really politically toxic for republicans but also looking at a bunch of topics that frankly aren't necessarily going to help them put political points on the board because ultimately the project of this select committee is not to flip any particular house districts or senate seats. it is to figure out why exactly did the horror and violence of january 6 happen? what type of laws do members of congress need to pass to make sure that a horror like that doesn't happen again. of course, there is no question whatsoever as we've already seen that in the process of working on that project, the committee is finding and is likely to find all sorts of stuff that is extremely politically unpleasant for republicans but ultimately that's not the project. the project is figuring out what happened and how to keep it from happening again. that means the project is a lot wider than i think some people might realize. >> yeah, and, alex, congressman kinzinger probably had this very eloquent way of looking at this

line of reasoning to solely focus on the security lapses which is republicans' approach to january 6. it is kind of like looking at or blaming a home owner for not having a proper security system for a home invasion as opposed to looking at the criminal and why the criminal attacked that house in the first place. the democrats are doing the totality of the investigation. republicans just want to focus on the security lapse and ignore the criminals and the intent behind those that attacked the capitol on that day. >> but isn't that the playbook? it was established under trump when there was a leak of damaging information about the administration. the focus was not on the information that was revealed, the damning evidence, but who leaked it. this is the play they run. when something politically inconvenient or troublesome arises. don't focus on the material. focus on the interlocutur, the messenger. focus on the things around the scandal but not the scandal

itself. like going after the tsa when a plane is hijacked and not the terrorist. that is what is happening. not just because it is a more convenient way of getting around having to address the scandal but also it confuses things. that is a central strategy of trumpism. chum the waters. make it confusing. give people something to cling to. get their eyes focused on kinzinger or the capitol police. take it off of us. the more you have sort of crossed lines about who the sinners were, who the bad actors were, the easier it is to just throw static in what should be a very clear investigation into as betsy says a horror that unfolded not for the republican party or the democratic party but for the country, for the electoral process. for the central pillars of our democracy on january 6th. that has been lost in all of this. and the more we sort of infuse matters, the more republicans launch shadow investigations and

censor people trying to get to the bottom of things the easier it is to lose sight of the central principle in all of this. >> obfuscate or gas light seems the republican way on this matter. i want to play for you from my colleague chuck todd a short interview clip from marc short. here is what he had to say about the pressure by trump and his allies on his boss the vice president. >> i think, unfortunately, the president had many bad advisers basically snake oil salesmen giving him really random and novel ideas as to what the vice president could do. our office researched than recognized that. >> so does this square with your reporting, betsy, on what short may have told the january 6 committee? >> that's consistent with my understanding of what was happening in the days prior to the january 6 attack on the capitol. the fact that marc short has testified to the january select committee is a really big deal.

what's also a big deal is the fact that gregory jacob who was counsel to vice president pence on january 6th also answered questions for hours behind closed doors last week to the select committee. there's been a lot of discussion about whether or not the committee will ask former vice president pence to come in, whether they'll subpoena him, obviously huge, interesting news worthy questions. but the fact that the committee now has had at least to some degree cooperation from marc short and greg jacob means that they know a whole, whole, whole lot of what former vice president pence would tell them if he were to go in. those two men would have collectively just had so much visibility into all the efforts by the extremely unusual group of folks trying to throw legal advice at trump in the days leading up to january 6. they would have an extraordinary level of visibility into what type of legal arguments were being made, who was making them, how seriously they were being made, how much pressure was put

on the vice president to defy federal law and overturn the election results. the fact that those two men now have both answered questions from the select committee is just a really big deal. >> all right. betsy woodruff swan, charlie sykes, thank you very much to both of you. claire, alex, i'll ask you to stick around a little longer. the need to return to some semblance of a normal pre-covid life with democrats across the country starting to recognize this as well. more states today announcing an end to mask mandates including in schools. our panel weighs in on that next. schools our panel weighs in on that next ♪ i think to myself ♪ ♪ what a wonderful world ♪

throughout history i've observed markets shaped by the intentional and unforeseeable. for investors who can navigate this landscape, leveraging gold, a strategic and sustainable asset... the path is gilded with the potential for rich returns. >> woman: what's my safelite story? i see inspiration right through my glass. so when my windshield cracked, i chose safelite. they replaced the glass and recalibrated my safety system. that's service i can trust. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

my name is douglas. i'm a writer/director and i'm still working. in the kind of work that i do, you are surrounded by people who are all younger than you. i had to get help somewhere along the line to stay competitive. i discovered prevagen. i started taking it and after a period of time, my memory improved.

it was a game-changer for me. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. because of the dramatic decline in our covid numbers, effective monday, march 7th, the statewide school mask mandate will be lifted. any student, educator, staff member, or visitor who chooses to continue masking up while indoors may freely do so. we expect the schools will take swift disciplinary action against those who may try to demean or bully anyone who chooses to wear a mask. >> new jersey governor phil murphy today with a major announcement the end of the statewide mask mandate for students, teachers, staff, and visitors at schools and child care settings starting one month from today. in new jersey once an early covid epicenter cases have plummeted 71% in the last two weeks.

joining us now new jersey governor phil murphy. governor, thank you so much for your time. it is great to see you again. explain to our viewers the reasoning for doing away with school mask requirements and why not immediately? why march 7th? >> ayman good to be with you. thank you for having me. a number of factors at play here as you rightfully point out. cases, hospitalizations, positivity rates, rates of transmission, in school, infections, all of that have been plummeting. we were hit first in every one of these waves and we're now coming out of it in a precipitous and positive way. secondly, we've made more progress on vaccinations of newly eligible groups including kids. we are optimistic the under 5-year-olds will come in, get approval to be eligible soon. we wanted to give ourselves a responsible runway. we think a month, you get to a little bit better weather which gives you more ventilation

options and also allows our department of health to come up with the guidelines that schools will need on things like quarantining and other public health measures. so for the combination of all of those reasons, we feel like this is the right step. as i said earlier today, we're not declaring victory but we are saying unambiguously we can responsibly live with this thing. >> and living with it is going to be very welcomed news to a lot of people in your state and around the country who are looking to new jersey for guidance but also others will look at the cdc which still recommends all k-12 students, staff, and teachers in schools wear masks indoors regardless of vaccination status as you are aware and also just to note you're still recommending masks in crowded indoor places statewide for everyone over the age of 2, which obviously logically assumes children who go to school even if they're not in school. why recommend removing the mandate for masks for school age children at schools but not elsewhere in the state?

do you think that districts now will keep the mandates if it is up to them? >> it is up to them. if they choose to. and they're welcome to. the mask mandate other than in schools is not a mandate. it's actually a recommendation. we've been very closely adhering to the cdc guidance since the beginning. in this particular case, we got clobbered first in all these waves including omicron but we've come out of it or we're coming out of it dramatically. so our situation is not the normal american state right now. we feel quite comfortable in being able to take this step forward and do it responsibly and keep our kids safe. >> you cited the numbers that are working in your favor, the declining covid numbers, growth in vaccinations that allows you to do this responsibly. but only about 51% of eligible people in new jersey are currently boosted. are you concerned about that? what are the next steps to make

sure those numbers go up to where they need to be? >> yeah, i am concerned about it. and in particular i think we are one of only six states that have achieved the overall vaccination levels we have achieved but the booster uptake is unacceptable. we're better than the american average but that is of little solace. so there is a whole other set of efforts we put up against that literally including going door to door. public service. reminding folks however we can with our bully pulpit social media, with our health experts, you are far more protected with a booster than if you are just regular vaccinated or certainly more than if you're unvaccine nated. we have to keep driving that point home in clear, concise, simple communication. >> governor, last week after your governors conference meeting with president biden you said, quote, the overwhelming sentiment on both sides of the aisle is we want to get to the

place where we can live with this thing in as normal a fashion as possible. do you feel you have the white house support in this move and how should democrats shift covid messaging ahead of the midterms? is it going to be a political factor? >> i don't view this through a political lens. we've made one unpopular decision after another in the midst of politics and you can't let politics creep into it. do we have the white house's support? absolutely. i cannot say enough good things about the president and his team. at that meeting of the national governors association all of us, both sides of the aisle, white house itself, trying to get as clear a sense as possible of what the road from a pandemic to an endemic looks like. what is the timing, what are the mile posts? the steps we announced today we believe responsibly is a step toward that in the state of new jersey and if we can take more

steps in the weeks and months ahead we will take them as long as we can do so responsibly. >> we certainly wish you the best of luck, governor, phil murphy of new jersey. greatly appreciate your time. thank you, sir. >> thanks for having me. >> always a pleasure. claire mccaskill, alex wagner are both back with us. claire, i'll start with you, your reaction to governor murphy recognizing that we must begin to live with covid, even in our schools. his responsible approach to what we're seeing from gop governors, quite frankly, that eight states from the very beginning, where mask mandates are still banned in school and they made a political point of making sure that even the local school districts did not have the authority to mandate masks for children. >> well, i think some of the republican governors have always treated this pandemic as a political opportunity to be very irresponsible on vaccines, on masks, across the country,

right-wing governors have seen this as their way to convince people that the government should never tell people what to do. then you have a governor like governor murphy who's tried to look at the facts, consult with the doctors, take the most responsible position possible, but that also embraces getting back to normal at some point, especially when the numbers bear out that it's safe to do so, and i think at our own peril, democrats need to recognize that, for children in schools, being able to see faces and returning to some kind of normal environment is a very good thing for kids and their ability to learn, and i think that's really also at play here. >> yeah, definitely couldn't agree with you more on that as a father of two young school-age children. alex, i know you are in that same boat as well. the politics of this cannot be ig in order. the massive protests against canada's public health measures,

which police say has relied partly on funding from sympathizers here in the united states and then you have this crazy reaction from the gop to stacey abrams and congresswoman alyssa slotkin taking their masks off. it shows the importance of democrats gaining more control on the messages around this. do democrats need to pick a side and work on this together, reconsider mask mandates totally, or wear masks if they want to be taken seriously while the messaging that still comes out for them is about masks? >> you know, look, i thought one of the things that the governor said is really interesting is that he believes there's full support of the white house. there's obviously coordination going on. one can assume there will be other blue state governors that make decisions in the coming weeks but democrats have to be careful. nobody has forgotten last summer when it was supposed to be the hop back summer and everybody was going to take their masks off and we were going to burn our latex gloves and our pcr

tests or our antigen tests and here comes delta, and here comes omicron. and i think one of the biggest political land mines for democrats and those in leadership positions is figuring out how to manage a novel virus that keeps mutating and there is always the risk that something else is going to come along and they're going to have to reinstate a mask policy. now, that wouldn't be such a big deal if the question of masking specifically wasn't a sort of political hot potato, right? if we could just live in a world where a mask wasn't a political statement but just a public health concern, and you could have periods where you had to mask and periods where you didn't, then all would be fine and well. but unfortunately, every time there is conflicting information, which is to say, a summer where you cannot wear a mask but a fall where you have to, that will be, the republican party in particular, and supporters of president trump, will use that to divide and use it as a political cudgel, and they will say, democrats don't have their act together.

it's confusing. you can't trust these guides in leadership. so every time someone makes a bold statement or a move to get back to normal, as governor murphy does, it doesn't come without serious risk. if something else happens on the virus mutation front and we go back into masks, you can be sure that we will hear a lot of complaints about mixed messages coming from the state house. and i think, you know, managing this thing is a bear. it would be difficult in normal circumstances. the fact that it's a quickly changing virus and the rest of the world is not boosted the way we are in some parts of the u.s. makes it ever more complicated. >> yeah, claire, and i want to talk about the hypocrisy for a moment. stacey abrams's campaign says she wore a mask to the event and removed it at the podium so she could be heard by the students. here's part of their statement aimed at kemp and purdue. purdue, obviously, the contender to brian kemp in georgia. one of stacey's opponents downplayed the virus while trading stock to profit off the

pandemic after his private coronavirus briefings as a senator. another of her opponents attacked mayors seeking to protect their citizens and has failed to expand access to medicaid even as rural hospitals close. what do you make of the gop response and hypocrisy, right? even thinking of governor desantis in florida who said, his guiding principle throughout the pandemic wasn't science, wasn't the lives of floridians, it was freedom. >> yeah. well, i do think that he is playing to a very small segment of the american public. i think most americans realize this was real and dangerous. but i really think democrats need to continue to pound the podium about vaccinations, not just for seniors and not just for adults but also for children, to continue to pound the podium on boosters. we know now that even with omicron, that the deaths and the serious illnesses were really

focused on people who refused to accept science, and those republicans own that. their failure to accept science as it relates to vaccines. i mean, that's much stronger ground to stand on than the -- to mask or not mask, because as alex said, it has become so political that you just basically, there -- people are so calcified in their positions about masks, you can't really move the needle in terms of keeping people safe or gaining political traction. >> special thanks to both of you for juggling so many different stories with us this hour and spending time with us. the next hour of "deadline white house" starts right after this quick break. white house" starts right afr te white house" starts right afr te this quick break ♪ what a wonderful world ♪ there's a different way to treat hiv.

it's once-monthly injectable cabenuva. cabenuva is the only once-a-month, complete hiv treatment for adults who are undetectable. cabenuva helps keep me undetectable. it's two injections, given by a healthcare provider once a month. hiv pills aren't on my mind. i love being able to pick up and go. don't receive cabenuva if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking certain medicines, which may interact with cabenuva. serious side effects include allergic reactions post-injection reactions, liver problems,...and depression. if you have a rash and other allergic reaction symptoms, stop cabenuva and get medical help right away. tell your doctor if you have liver problems or mental health concerns, and if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. some of the most common side effects include injection site reactions, fever, and tiredness. if you switch to cabenuva, attend all treatment appointments. with once-a-month cabenuva, i'm good to go. ask your doctor about once-monthly cabenuva. at intra-cellular therapies,

we're inspired by our circle. a circle that includes our researchers, driven by our award-winning science, who uncover new medicines to treat mental illness. it includes the compassionate healthcare professionals, the dedicated social workers, and the supportive peer counselors we work with to help improve - and even change - people's lives. moving from mental illness to mental wellness starts in our circle. this is intra-cellular therapies. we're hoping things will pick up by q3. yeah...uhhh... [children laughing] doug? [ding] never settle with power e*trade. it has easy-to-use tools and some of the lowest prices. get e*trade and start trading today.

the justice department remains committed to holding all january 6th perpetrators at any level accountable under law. whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy. we will follow the facts wherever they lead. >> hi again, everyone, it is 5:00 in new york. i'm ayman mohyeldin in for nicole wallace. on the eve of the anniversary of the deadly capitol insurrection, attorney general merrick garland did not provide specifics but said the justice department would hold all january 6th perpetrators accountable and provided a glimmer of hope to those who believe the doj should not stop at prosecuting those

who physically stormed the capitol that day but expand its work to include individuals like the ex-president and his allies who incited the violence that transpired. yet, there has been no sign since then that the justice department is currently pursuing any investigations into those who provoked the riot. that silence could explain the more aggressive posture we have seen from the january 6th select committee on this, which "the new york times" describes in a new piece as taking on a prosecutorial approach to its investigation. from that reporting, in what its members see as the best opportunity to hold mr. trump and his team accountable, the committee, which has no authority to pursue criminal charges, is using what powers it has in expansive ways in hopes of pressuring attorney general merrick garland to use the justice department to investigate and prosecute them. now, the "times" details tactics the committee is using, ones that are typically used against mobsters and terrorists. quote, faced with at least 16 trump allies who have signalled

they will not fully cooperate with the committee, investigators have taken a page out of organized crime prosecutions and quietly turned at least six lower level trump staff members into witnesses who have provided information about their boss's activities. the committee is also considering granting immunity to key members of mr. trump's inner circle who have invoked their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination as a way of pressuring them to testify. the committee taking on an approach, it says, is required to meet the moment and the unconventional practices of the previous administration. practices, we should note, like the ones detailed in new reporting from "the washington post" this morning. although glimpses of trump's penchant for ripping were reported earlier in his presidency by politico in 2018, the house select committee's investigation into the january 6th insurrection has shined a whole new light on the practice. "the washington post" reported that some of the white house records the national archives and records administration

turned over to the committee appeared to have been torn apart, and then actually taped back together. interviews with 11 former trump staffers, associates and others familiar with the habit reveal that trump's shredding of papers was far more widespread and indiscriminate than previously known, and despite multiple admonishments, extended throughout his presidency, resulting in special practices to deal with the torn fragments. most of these people spoke on the condition of anonymity to share candid details of a problematic practice. and that is where we start this hour. "new york times" congressional reporter luke broadwater is here. his byline is on that "new york times" reporting that we just read from. also with us, msnbc political analyst and former rnc chairman michael steele, msnbc legal analyst, barbara mcquade and peter strzok, former

counterintelligence agent and author of the book "compromise" which is now out in paperback. great to have you all with us. luke, let me start with you. what more can you tell us about your reporting on the january 6th committee and its tactics as they get deeper into this investigation? was there any concern that they were going too aggressive to try to get answers to their questions? >> you know, i don't think it's about being too aggressive. what the january 6th committee has encountered are at least 16 key witnesses from inside the trump orbit who are not cooperating, and they have -- they saw a very serious situation play out on january 6th with hundreds of police officers injured, a terrible threat to democracy, and so they're not going to carry this out like a normal congressional investigation. they have two former u.s. attorneys who are overseeing the investigation.

they have 12 former federal prosecutors. they've issued more than 100 subpoenas. they're using link analysis. they're bringing in low level people to talk about their boss's activities, and building out sort of charts of information of who's connected to whom in this whole scheme. and so, what we're seeing are, i think, very serious tactics for a very serious situation. yes, of course, lawyers for some of the witnesses believe the committee is being too aggressive, but in the members of the committees' view, who i talk to frequently, they view this committee as rising to meet the moment and to meet a tremendous threat to american democracy. >> let me read, luke, a little bit more from your reporting. when mr. meadows, the former white house chief of staff refused to testify, the panel turned to his top aide, ben williamson, who complied with a subpoena and sat for hours of questioning. after mr. clark, the justice department lawyer refused to cooperate, a former senior

counsel who worked with him, kenneth, sat for an interview with the committee. representative jamie raskin, democrat of maryland and a member of the panel said the committee was not trying to, quote, flip witnesses the way investigators might do in a criminal case, but he said, if you drew some kind of social diagrams of who's testifying and who's not, pretty much everyone is testifying except for those who are in the immediate entourage of donald trump. talk to us about that for a moment, about how the committee is finding ways to get the information it needs, even if there are some big names not cooperating and how trump's answer to every investigation is basically to stonewall it and stop his allies or perhaps even hanging something out there in front of them so that they don't cooperate. >> well, we saw this right off the bat. the very first four subpoenas the committee put out, donald trump instructed those four witnesses not to cooperate with the committee in any way. so, we knew right away that they

were going to run into roadblocks. so -- now, what has played out is that while some of these highest paid and top level people might be willing to fight the committee, might have the money to pay high-powered lawyers, many lower ranking people do not, and the way the trump white house was run and the trump campaign was run, is that lots of people were swirling in and out, so you know, meetings would have multiple people, some people coming into the room, some people coming out of the room, and some of those were lower level people who heard lots of things, who might have been the back of the room, who might have walked in just for a few minutes, but overheard things, and so they can tell the committee very useful information, and some of them are doing it under subpoena. some are doing it reluctantly, but many are coming forward voluntarily. the committee has had more than 475 witnesses testify so far. so -- and we're seeing some drips and drags come out of what the committee is learning.

you'll hear testimony from, say, a pence aide about conversations in the oval office that he overheard with president trump and ivanka trump, and you'll see little bits come out in the media here and there through leaks or through letters. but what we do know is the committee is getting closer each day to building a very comprehensive case about what happened here. >> and that raises the question about what happens after that, peter. i'm curious to get your thoughts on two fronts here. as a former fbi agent, what do you think when you hear reporting like this, that we just heard described from luke about how the committee's approaching its investigation? is this the right way? and the second part to that is, you obviously worked in the fbi director, you know how investigations in there go. is there any chance that there is an ongoing investigation with the same kind of granular level reporting that we're hearing from luke and others that we just don't know about? i mean, is the fbi -- do you think they're even investigating this the same way, but it's just done in a secret way that we

have no idea, no reporting, no leaks about it? >> well, those are great questions. to your first question, i think this is -- i spent 20 years working investigations that frequently overlapped with congressional investigations, and in that time, i never saw congress moving at the speed and the breadth of what they're doing right now. they're gathering a tremendous amount of information and they're doing it very quickly, and as the reporting i understand, being led by a couple of former u.s. attorneys, so i expect that they are operating in a way that is very similar to the way that investigators and prosecutors would go about unpacking this information. so, they are getting a lot of information. i think they are also moving up the chain, quite likely more quickly than the fbi and doj are doing. you know, having said that, i do think that both the department of justice and the fbi are looking at the broad scope of what happened on january 6th. they have been very focused on the lower levels of the protesters, you know, the 700-plus folks that have been charged are largely at the lower level. i do absolutely think that in many cases, they are looking.

now, we know, for instance, there's some indication that doj got records of steve bannon's attorney. we know that doj has sought and obtained rudy giuliani's records. of course, giuliani was the counselor to the president, and folks, we know that doj is looking at people like sidney powell, who served in some capacity at a very senior level as an attorney. so, this activity at a higher level is going on at doj. i do worry that just by the nature of criminal investigations, as we hit this point of the higher levels, doj is necessarily going to be a little bit slower and maybe a step or two behind what doj is doing. >> yeah, and i wonder if the timeline -- >> i'm sorry, what congress is doing. >> and i wonder if the timeline of january 6th is also shaped by the midterms in which they unfortunately may lose control of congress, which would bring an end to that. so they may be operating under a different timeline. barbara, the committee has made it clear, they think the doj should look into things. here's what adam kinzinger on "morning joe" said earlier. >> all we can do is provide

information, particularly in mark meadows's case. he violated a subpoena. congress has the same subpoena authority as a court, and then -- but we don't enforce it. we rely on doj to do that. i certainly hope they criminally charge mark meadows with contempt as we have charged him with in the house. i think any of the information the doj sees that leads to broader conspiracy or anything leading all the way up to the top, they should take to a court or to a grand jury. >> help us understand this, barbara. why haven't we heard anything from the doj on this? is garland waiting for congress to finish its investigation? because there is some stuff that you can say, the doj can act on immediately, including the subpoena, you know, violation, if you will, by mark meadows and others. think haven't pursued that criminally yet, and i'm curious why you think they haven't done so. >> one of the frustrating things

about the justice department is its silence. we never know exactly what is going on in that building and so it leaves us to speculate and i think sometimes it causes us to feel frustration or even lack of confidence they're doing anything at all. one reason they may have refrained with charging mark meadows with contempt is because they're thinking of him not as a witness but as a defendant. it could very well be that they're looking at him as a bigger fish. if they charge him with contempt, it may preclude them from charging him with other things so at the moment, there's a possibility of other charges, bigger charges on the table. i could imagine a scenario where trump and some of his inner circle are charged with a crime of conspiracy to defraud the united states. that makes it a crime to obstruct the functioning of government, and so the functioning of the workings of the electoral college and congress and certifying the president. mark meadows was in the inner circle in all of those meetings. he was in the meetings with pence where president trump was trying to pressure pence to

do -- overturn the election by abusing his power as vice president. mark meadows was involved in the decisions and the conversations with brad raffensperger, the secretary of state in georgia. so, it may very well be that they're looking to charge him with a more serious crime and thinking of him not as a witness but as a defendant. so, it's speculation, but it is what -- what we're left with. i know some have expressed frustration with merrick garland for moving so slowly and saying so little but i still take a lot of stock in the statements he made about efforts to pursue bad actors at any level, regardless of whether they were there on january 6th or not. >> yeah, and barbara, as michael barber's theory or speculation obviously makes sense when you think about it from the law but there's the practical side of it, which is, like, you have a guy committing two crimes but you're waiting to prosecute him for the bigger one than the smaller one. most people don't get that privilege in our day-to-day lives, especially when you have a president like trump, who some are saying is tampering with

witnesses the way peter was talking about, you know, dangling things outside of witnesses or instructing witnesses not to cooperate with the january 6th investigation. you got trump, who is currently under investigation for many different things, impeached twice, never removed from office, and the question is, will this time be different? will there be any consequence? will he and his allies get out, essentially, unscathed again? >> well, my friend, you've put your finger on the nub of it, because in listening to my esteemed colleagues on this panel, from the great reporting of luke and the legal analysis of very smart lawyers, a hell of a lot smarter than me, and i'm a recovering lawyer, you know? the reality of it boils down to this. at what point does this become serious for the american people? at what point do they -- do they begin to recognize and internalize, oh, snap, this is real? this is beyond the politics.

because right now, what trump is doing is muddying the water with the politics. what all of his actors from giuliani to the chief of staff to whomever, doesn't matter, they're all trying to muddy the waters. they're trying to get away with what they know is a crime. what the rnc did this past week was put their mater on it to muddy the waters with the politics. but for the -- for garland and for this committee, it boils down to a very simple thing. at what point do the american people see this and know it's real? and it matters? and it has an impact? and it's not just political. that republicans have been lying through their teeth about january 6th. and now, it's time for all those chickens to come home to roost, baby. and that's what the american people are waiting for. that's part of that timeline, that clock that's ticking. yep, the election is a dead end, because you know what happens come january of next year if

republicans take over. all of this goes away. >> game over. >> and the script is flipped, and they begin -- become the prosecutors of the january 6th commission. they become the prosecutors of those who went after donald trump. that's what trump is setting this up for. so, garland and the committee have to, while they can't coordinate, they have to be at least in the same room, in the same ballpark about the evidence that's being produced at the moment. >> yeah, it's a scary thought of what happens next year if republicans take control of that investigation. we already know what their playbook looks like, based on what they are calling for with these shadow investigations. barbara, i want to talk about the other reporting we talked about, trump's habit of destroying documents here. here's some more from the "washington post's" reporting on this. the ripping was so relentless that trump's team implemented protocols to try to ensure that he was abiding by the presidential records act, typically aides from either the office of the staff secretary or

the oval office operations team would come in behind trump to retrieve the piles of torn paper he left in his wake, according to one person familiar with this routine. then, the staffers from the white house office of records and management were generally responsible for jigsawing the documents back together using clear tape. i mean, it is mind-boggling, what this is. the idea that -- again, i'm not a lawyer, but i know that shredding documents when you are an executive in the executive branch of government, probably not a smart legal strategy here. from your legal perspective, and legal standpoint, how alarming is this story? >> well, the presidential records act requires the retention of presidential records. the whole category of them. and presidents are told what they're supposed to retain. the reporting is he had this habit, had it back when he was in the private sector, that he would tear things up when he was done with them and that meant the matter is over.

but he was counseled on this, that you can't do this when you're in government. there are a lot of things you can't do when you're in government. there are a lot of rules and these items get retained afterwards, even after being so counseled, he continued to do that. now, there does not appear to be any indication that he did this in an effort to obstruct investigations of certain things. as a result of this, it could be that there are certain documents that are missing. it was just his habit to do this. but it's a convenient habit, isn't it? well, there are no records of my wrongdoing because i tear up all the records. so, it is problematic. the presidential records act itself, you know, most people comply with the law because they're ethical people and they want to -- they're serving on behalf of the people as the president so they comply with the law. there's not really a penalty to it. there is another statute that makes it a crime to destroy records if done for the purpose of concealing the information contained within them, and then, of course, the obstruction of justice statutes when you destroy evidence that could be

evidence of a crime. that would require a little more evidence that there was a specific intent to conceal the content of these documents. i don't know that we have it yet. but i think it is particularly rich that we are hearing about this practice from a president who campaigned on criticism of his opponent for using a private email server. you know, it's -- you just couldn't make this stuff up. so not every bad act is a criminal act, but it certainly should be one that receives the same kind of criticism in the court of public opinion that was given to hillary clinton for the way she treated her emails. >> i was going to say, i'm old enough to remember the campaign slogan, but her emails. how do you square this practice by the former president, who has tried over and over to hide his records? we know this, you know, from investigations into his business practices, that trump didn't like to write things down. he doesn't use emails, as we understand it. he has issues of transparency with the american public. it is now coming to light, and yet again, as barbara said, the law does not necessarily mean that he can be prosecuted for

destroying these records if his intent was, like, hey, this is how i've been doing things all my life. >> well, there are a few things i want to find out, and before we say it was just records, i think "the washington post" updated their reporting this afternoon to say that there are 15 boxes that were removed from mar-a-lago, and that was a scale that they had never seen, that the national archives had ever seen before so i'm very curious what's in those records. of course, you know, hillary clinton, we investigated her not so much because she used a private server. we investigated her because classified information appeared on that private server. so, if it turns out that in these 15 boxes there are things that relate to the national defense, that opens up a whole other investigative question and question of the there were laws broken, not about retention of presidential records, but unlawful retention of classified information. that's a completely different question that i'm very interested to see what comes out of that. the second point i would make is we all know about trump's habit of ripping things up, but what really concerned me in the "washington post" article was

this idea that there were other white house officials, a senior white house official who said that he and other people would put documents in burn bags to have them destroyed because they didn't want to maintain them. so, this isn't just behavior about trump. this is a -- looks like potentially much wider spread behavior than just one man who had a habit of tearing little confetti bits of paper that crossed into the oval office. >> it is highly alarming one way or the other. great point on the confidentiality and classified information. peter strzok, barbara mcquade, michael steele, luke broadwater, thank you. protesters taking to the street of minneapolis after police shot and killed amir locke on his couch after the execution of a no-knock warrant. it is another tragedy for the country and once again sparking a national conversation about racial injustice and policing. plus, president biden putting forth a united front with the new german chancellor just as the french president, emmanuel macron, meets with vladimir putin in russia.

are we any closer to a de-escalation of tensions in ukraine? and the olympics are off to a rousing start but not without controversy over beijing's record on human rights. the newest controversies later this hour. "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. our. "deadline white house" continues "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. my name is austin james. as a musician living with diabetes, fingersticks can be a real challenge. that's why i use the freestyle libre 2 system. with a painless, one-second scan y glucose numbers without fingersticks. now i'm managing my diabetes better and i've lowered my a1c from 8.2 to 6.7. take the mystery out of managing your diabetes and lower your a1c. now you know. try it for free at freestylelibre.us now you know. living with metastatic breast cancer means being relentless. because every day matters. and having more of them is possible with verzenio. the only one of its kind proven to help you live significantly longer when taken with fulvestrant, regardless of menopause status.

verzenio + fulvestrant is for hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after hormone therapy. diarrhea is common, may be severe, or cause dehydration or infection. at the first sign, call your doctor start an anti-diarrheal and drink fluids. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor about any fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. life-threatening lung inflammation can occur. tell your doctor about any new or worsening trouble breathing, cough, or chest pain. serious liver problems can happen. symptoms include fatigue, appetite loss, stomach pain and bleeding or bruising. blood clots that can lead to death have occurred. tell your doctor if you have pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain, and rapid breathing or heart rate, or if you're nursing, pregnant or plan to be. every day matters. and i want more of them. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio. alright. y'all know when they say your home is a reflection of you? well helene found herself in a lamp. no joke. i got a fancy grown up lamp to make me feel like a fancy grown up. mhm. adulting ain't easy.

ooh! check this one out. waffles loves her dog bed. we can hardly get her out of it. she's kind of a diva. yes, waffles! living your best life. [woof] i'm telling y'all there's no place like wayfair to make your home totally you. ooh! i want that. there are some days that nothing can prepare you for. but being ready— it's about how you react. so when new challenges come up, you find a new way forward. when you meet other people facing what you faced, you start a business dedicated to helping them. and after you've achieved all that, you take on what's next.

family clearly requires -- is not asking, but they require and they demand justice. they demand criminal justice. they demand administrative justice. and they will demand civil justice. they want everything across the

board here, because there is no way that amir should be dead right now. had the police department done what they should have done, had they really articulated the reason, the dangerousness for a no-knock warrant, which we see did not exist, amir would be alive right now. >> all right, so that was the lawyer for the family of amir locke on my show last night calling for justice from the police department after the fatal shooting of 22-year-old amir locke who was shot during a no-knock warrant at his apartment complex on wednesday morning. questions are swirling and police are under heavy criticism for their conduct during this incident as locke was not named as a suspect. his name was not on the warrant, nor did he live at the apartment. shots were fired at locke after he was startled awake and reached for a legal firearm to protect himself, according to his family. in a statement, minneapolis police said that upon entry, quote, officers encountered a male who was armed with a

handgun pointed in the direction of officers. thousands took to the streets this weekend to protest the police's actions as the shooting comes amid a tense moment for the city of minneapolis still reeling from the murder of george floyd two years ago. in response to the shooting, minneapolis mayor jacob fry ordered an immediate halt to no-knock warrants, saying, quote, no matter what information comes to light, it won't change the fact that amir locke's life was cut short. to ensure safety of both the public and officers, i'm issuing a moratorium on both the request and execution of such warrants in minneapolis. joining us now is civil rights attorney and former prosecutor david henderson. great to see you again. so, explain this to us. explain to us no-knock warrants and why it's used but more importantly, why it has been so problematic. how important was frey's decision in reimplementing this moratorium in minneapolis? >> first, it's good to see you

too. the reason for no-knock warrants is basically the police always claim, it's to preserve officer safety, that it's necessary. but studies show that officers grossly mischaracterize when they're actually put at risk for some of the routine things they do on the job like traffic stops and like executing warrants. if you look at the body camera footage in this case, it's very clear the officers' lives were not at risk. meanwhile, the rule cannot be that if you are in a dwelling, lawfully, and you are not committing a crime, the police can break in, shoot you, and kill you with no consequence. >> yeah, i was going to say, the immediate thought of sitting on couch, sleeping on a friend's couch for whatever reason, having a legal firearm, according to the family, being startled by men coming into the room with guns is just mind-goggling to think they were under an immediate threat, at least from what we've seen. where can we expect things to head from here? as you heard earlier, the family's demanding justice and answers and accountability. can we expect to see a credible

internal investigation into this matter or will it have to come from the attorney general's office? which i believe now is involved in the investigation. >> and you know, really, that determines my answer. i think you're going to see a meaningful investigation because the attorney general's office is involved. and you know, after the kim potter trial, where she killed daunte wright, part of what i had to consider was, maybe expectations have grown to be too low in cases where police commit misconduct. keith ellison has apprised us a couple of times now with the outcome in recent case involving derek chauvin's trial and kim potter's trial. the converse is that tensions are going to continue to build as the police push back gradually more as they have so far with charges being brought in these types of cases. >> when it comes to police reform, we saw a similar situation two years ago happen

in louisville to breonna taylor and minneapolis police continue to ask for no-knock warrants, despite activists across the country saying, we need a national effort to ban these types of tactics. do you think outrage from this time around could lead to broader push for law enforcement to prohibit the use of such tactics or narrowly define this scope of when they can be used? >> ayman, i'm torn on that answer. i don't think the outrage is enough. however, i do think that meaningful prosecution is enough. when a.g. ellison has done in cases recently is what prosecutors typically do, and they ask, what is the just outcome? i think when prosecutors do that, and not enough of them are, and it leads to consequences for police officers who engage in misconduct, that will be enough to start to turn the tide on the outcomes that we see. it's going to get a lot of pubback initially. we haven't seen it reach its peak yet, i don't think, but i think it leads to change over time. because here's the thing. and you pointed it out. when it came to breonna taylor's

death, the police claim that they weren't executing a no-knock warrant. they claim they announced themselves before they went in, and it still led to the wrongful outcomes despite the fact that her boyfriend showed more control of a firearm under difficult circumstances than the police officers did. so, i think it's going to require consequences to see meaningful change. >> all right, david henderson, thank you so much for joining us. greatly appreciate it. amid the warnings that a russian invasion of ukraine could happen any time, diplomacy has kicked into high gear at the white house and in moscow with the latest -- will the latest attempts, excuse me, succeed in avoiding a military conflict? ce ce avoiding a military conflict i recommend salonpas. agreed... my patients like these patches because they work for up to 12 hours, even on moderate pain. salonpas. it's good medicine

what happens when we welcome change? we can transform our workforce overnight out of convenience, or necessity. we can explore uncharted waters, and not only make new discoveries, but get there faster, with better outcomes. with app, cloud and anywhere workspace solutions, vmware helps companies navigate change-- meeting them where they are, and getting them where they want to be. faster. vmware. welcome change.

i'm so glad we could all take this trip together, son yeah. and kayak made getting here so easy- ♪ ♪ here we go. you know i'm a kayak denier! you can't possibly believe kayak compare hundreds of travel sites at once! get out! i will do no such thing. and don't use kayak to fly home, because it's not real!

i'm going back to the room. compare hundreds of travel sites at once. kayak. search one and done.

the top of our agenda today was our united approach to dedeterring russia's threats against ukraine. we have made it very clear we're ready to continue talks in good faith with russia. germany has also been a leader in pushing de-escalation of tensions, but if russia makes the choice to further invade ukraine, we are jointly ready and all of nato is ready. >> a united front from president biden and german chancellor olaf scholz. the u.s. has been urging germany to take a firmer position in the hopes of deterring russia from invading ukraine. russia has amassed more than

100,000 troops along the border, a number senior biden administration officials tell lawmakers is 70% of what russia would need to invade that country. earlier today, french president emmanuel macron met with russian president vladimir putin in an attempt to avert a military conflict. joining us now, state department spokesperson ned price. ned, it's good to see you again. thank you so much for joining us. talk to us about today's meeting. by all assessments, a united front. the german chancellor, not necessarily going as far as president biden with saying that nordstream 2 would be dead but he did say that there is a united front and there would be severe sanctions if russia does invade. >> well, that's right, ayman, and you heard this today from the german chancellor, both in german and english, by the way, that there would be a strong and unified response if moscow chooses the path of escalation, if moscow chooses the path of conflict. we have been engaged with our

partners and our allies around the world, certainly including our nato allies, certainly including our german allies. over the course of more than two months now, there have been about 200 engagements, whether in-person, whether over the phone, whether over video conference, and what you see today was no accident. what you have seen today, what you have seen in any number of fora, has been the product of intense american diplomacy, intense coordination and consultations with our partners and our allies to develop that sense of resolve and then specifically, to develop a sense of very meaningful, strong, profound, sudden consequences that would befall moscow if russia were to move forward with that invasion. we have heard that now from the germans. we have heard that from nato as a whole. we've heard that from the g7. we've heard that from the eu, and you have heard that loud and clear from the united states. >> and biden -- president biden today said that there is no doubt about germany's partnership with the u.s. earlier this month, a member of his own party said that germany

has been missing in action. was senator blumenthal wrong, or has germany changed their approach over the last couple of weeks? how would you describe the tone change? >> well, germany's approach has been consistent. germany is an important member of the nato alliance. germany is an important ally. what's important to us is that all members of the nato alliance, that all the partners of ukraine around the world, support ukraine in meaningful, complementary, and reinforcing ways. and that's what we've seen from germany. that's what we've seen from our allies. that's what the united states has done. so we talk about all of the things that the united states has done for ukraine. we can talk about the $650 million in defensive security assistance, more than any other administration has provided. we can talk about the authorization that we provided for our nato allies to send u.s. origin equipment to ukraine, but you can talk about what germany has done. you can talk about the massive amount of economic support that

germany has given ukraine in recent years, second only to the united states. you can talk about the defensive supplies that germany has provided to ukraine. all of this is important, but what is most important is that the contributions we've seen from the united states, from our allies, from partners around the world, is complementary, mutually reinforcing for the support and the defense of ukraine. >> and the other piece of news today from the news conference was president biden saying it would be wise for american citizens to leave ukraine. can you elaborate more on that? what does that specifically mean? should american citizens right now in the ukraine -- in ukraine, excuse me, immediately leave that country because the u.s. believes war is imminent? >> let me unpack that a little bit. we have been urging americans in ukraine for some time now to strongly consider leaving the country. that's not because we believe an invasion is necessarily imminent. it is because we believe that the russians are now poised,

should they so choose, to invade ukraine at any time. again, if they make that very ill considered, that very dangerous decision. and so that's why we've been encouraging americans, while there are commercial flights still available, while, of course, ukraine remains calm, while the security situation is stable, to take advantage of these commercial flights, to leave ukraine in the event that there is further russian aggression and the security situation destabilizes very quickly, which it has the potential to do. our embassy on the ground in kyiv remains open. our embassy personnel are in a position to help americans get on those commercial flights. we can even offer to pay repatriation loans, to lend them the money if they need support from the u.s. government to travel back to the united states. so, this is not about saying an invasion is imminent. this is not about trying to engender panic. quite the opposite. this is about prudent preparations. this is about our paramount priority, that's a safety and security of americans around the

world, including, of course, in ukraine. >> let's talk a little bit about the diplomacy side of all of this and what's happening. you have the french president in russia. what is your understanding of why he is there? some of his comments are now being scrutinized by people here and others saying that the french are not necessarily as unified or as united as what now appears to be the case with the united states and germany. can you shed some light on that front? and more broadly speaking, one of the de-escalation points that some have suggested is the u.s. to say or make a public statement that at this point, ukraine will not be part of nato. is that something that the united states is prepared to say, to help de-escalate this situation that ukraine will not be a part of nato any time soon? >> so, on the first part of your question, ayman, as you know, we have been engaged with the russians, both in multilateral context, that is to say, through nato and through the osce, the organization for security and cooperation in europe, but also

bilaterally, and we have seen that our allies in europe and partners around the world have welcomed our bilateral engagement with russia for one simple reason. we have done so in full transparency and full consultation and full coordination with our partners and allies. so, we certainly welcome and appreciate any similar diplomatic efforts that are done in that vein. when it comes to the french, as you know, president biden had an opportunity to speak to president macron yesterday. he did so again just a few days before. secretary blinken spoke to his french counterpart yesterday as well. we have been in constant and regular touch with our french allies. we have a good understanding of what it is that president macron is seeking to do. we support any diplomatic efforts that have the potential to de-escalate. remember, our preference in all of this is not to see russia go down the path of conflict and a potentially devastating war in europe. our goal in all of this is to pursue the path of diplomacy and

de-escalation. we're doing that. we're doing that together with our partners and allies, and our partners and allies are doing that with their own diplomacy with the russian federation. when it comes to various promises, when it comes to what we might be able to say to help de-escalate the situation, we've also been clear about that. there are some areas that have the potential to be positive on our security concerns, the security concerns of the transatlantic community and also to address the concerns of the russian federation. those are the issues that we're talking about when we meet with the russians, whether bilaterally or multilaterally. these are arms control issues, these are issues of transparency, issues of missiles in europe, issues of stability in the relationship. but there are some things that are just nonstarters for us, and one of those nonstarters is the idea that there could be any limits on the ability of a country to aspire to join an alliance like nato. one of the foundational rules of the so-called international order is that every country

should be able to determine for itself its own foreign policy, its own sense of partnerships and alliances. no country, no matter how large that country is, even if that country has nuclear weapons, should be able to impinge on the sovereign right of every country to do just that. >> all right, state department spokesperson ned price, thank you so much for joining us, ned, greatly appreciate it. >> thanks for having me. and some breaking news to share with you from the supreme court, just within the last hour, the court is allowing alabama to use its new congressional district map. the highest court's decision halts a lower court order that required the state to redraw its map after it said it diluted black votes and was in violation of the voting rights act. chief justice john roberts sided with the liberal justices in dissent a quick break from us. when we return, a live report from beijing where the winter olympics are well under way. epo from beijing where the winter olympics are well under way.

first psoriasis, then psoriatic arthritis. even walking was tough. i had to do something. i started cosentyx®. cosentyx can help you move, look, and feel better... by treating the multiple symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting...get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections some serious... and the lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms... or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. tell your doctor if your crohn's disease symptoms... develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. watch me. ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. power e*trade gives you an award-winning mobile app

with powerful, easy-to-use tools, and interactive charts to give you an edge. 24/7 support when you need it the most. plus, zero-dollar commissions for online listed u.s. stocks. [ding] get e*trade and start trading today. if you have type 2 diabetes or high blood pressure... ...you're a target for... ...chronic kidney disease. you can already have it and not know it. if you have chronic kidney disease... ...your kidney health... ...could depend on what you do today. ♪far-xi-ga♪

farxiga is a pill that works... ...in the kidneys to help slow the progression of chronic kidney disease. farxiga can cause... ...serious side effects including dehydration,... ...urinary tract or genital yeast infections... ...in women and men,... ...and low blood sugar. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect... ...that may lead to death. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection... ...in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away... ...if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection,... ...an allergic reaction,... ...or ketoacidosis. and don't take it if you are on dialysis. take aim... ...at chronic kidney disease by talking to your doctor... ...and asking about farxiga. if you can't afford your medication,... ...astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪far-xi-ga♪ if you have this... consider adding this. an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. medicare supplement plans help by paying some of what medicare doesn't... and let you see any doctor. any specialist. anywhere in the u.s. who accepts medicare patients.

so if you have this... consider adding this. call unitedhealthcare today for your free decision guide. ♪ (music) for your free decision guide. ♪ i think to myself ♪ ♪ what a wonderful world ♪ all right, so, the 2022 winter olympics kicked off friday in beijing with a big opening ceremony, attempting to convey unity after two years of the pandemic. instead, it was the criticism of china's policies and human rights abuses that once again took center stage. in a controversial move, china chose a cross-country skier of uyghur descent to light the olympic cauldron, seemingly to

quiet the criticism levied from the u.s. and the west, who have condemned china for its record on human rights towards its uyghur population. at least one million uyghurs and other muslims have reportedly been detained by chinese security forces and worse. and just this weekend, chinese tennis star peng shuai, whose disappearance after accusing a chinese senior official of sexual assault, made international headlines and now said her retirement, where she also called her disappearance a, quote, huge misunderstanding. all while a member from china's olympic committee sat beside her throughout the interview, leading to more questions than answers about what has happened to her. let's bring in nbc news correspondent janis mackey frayer live in beijing and rick stengel, former top state department official and msnbc political analyst. janis, the international olympic committee has come under a lot of criticism for its inaction on

china, particularly with peng shuai. why won't they get involved even further? >> reporter: well, the ioc is fond of saying that it's not a political organization, that it's its job to keep in touch with athletes and put sport above politics, and in the case of sport above politics. in the case of peng shuai, they're practicing political diplomacy. in being a go-between china between china and the outside world. it should be noted this interview that peng shuai did with the french newspaper was done so with coordination with the ioc. it happened in an olympic committee hotel within the closed bubble of the beijing olympics, so a very controlled environment. questions were sent in advance. there were no followups allowed. there was an official from the chinese olympic committee that sat with peng shuai and did the

translation for her. another thing worth noting, ayman, people asking, well, why this newspaper? according to the officials around peng shuai, they said because they asked. and the newspaper has been very clear and trance point in the conditions around it. but france was one of the countries that did not join the diplomatic boycott of these olympic games. so in awarding this exclusive first interview to a french news outlet, it was probably a quiet nod to that. >> interesting point and very noteworthy to bring up that dynamic. many have said that president xi's actions were offensive and basically a slap in the face to the west who have condemned their human rights abuses what does this do for the olympics as a whole, janis? >> reporter: well, the olympics as a whole, as china has said all along will go ahead and

scheduled, they will be smooth and will be splendid. that was the message going into the opening ceremony and most certainly the message coming out of it. look at the imagery of president xi standing beside vladimir putin in a strong showing of alliance with other world leaders from not-so-democratic countries in the audience given the diplomatic boycott by the u.s. and other countries. the show that was put on at the opening ceremony was meant to strike this idea of unity among china's ethnic groups. certainly it was a surprise and a bold statement with having the uyghur athlete light the flame toward the end of the ceremony. there are now questions about her ayman. she competed on saturday. she didn't do well. she finished 43rd and she quietly retreated. she was supposed to show up at a press conference and she didn't. >> when you take all of that

together, rick, the developments with peng shuai and the uyghur athlete who has receded a little bit beyond the opening ceremony where she was the face of china, if you will, for a brief but very symbolic caldron. we think of mow hammad ali and what that meant for the world. what do you make of it? >> i think it was a shrewd pr move by xi jinping. you have many western nations, including the u.s., having a diplomatic boycott of china because of what secretary of state antony blinken calls it, genocide of uyghurs, where there are a million uyghurs in these reeducation camps. of course xi is trying to rebut

that image. by having not one well-known athlete of uyghur descent, that's a pr move. it doesn't erase the fact that what they're doing is a world historical crime. as you mentioned, the olympics has always been a great venue for politics. i know a lot of people don't like that. by the way, american athletes themselves from jesse owens to tommy smith and john carlos have used the olympics as an example of that. what we're seeing are two countries that don't allow free speech. that's the message they're really delivering. we're trying to show that athletes like all citizens can say what they want to say without the impingement of government. >> rick stengel, we'll have to leave it at that. thanks to nbc's janis mackey frayer in be jing. we'll be right back after a quick break. we'll be right back after a quick break.

ooh! check this one out. waffles loves her dog bed. we can hardly get her out of it. she's kind of a diva. yes, waffles! living your best life. [woof] i'm telling y'all there's no place like wayfair to make your home totally you. ooh! i want that. looking to get back in your type 2 diabetes zone? once-weekly ozempic® can help. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ ♪ oh, oh, oh ♪ ozempic® is proven to lower a1c. most people who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. and you may lose weight. adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. in adults also with known heart disease, ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. ozempic® helped me get back in my type 2 diabetes zone. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it.

stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. looking to get back in your type 2 diabetes zone? ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription. three days into the olympic winter games and the united states has some catching up to

do. we won't spoil the results, don't worry. here is where the medal count stands, russia, china and the netherlands lead the field. the u.s. tied for 12th. just three medals to speak of for the red, white and blue. there's still plenty of time. nearly two weeks of competition left to go. we'll be right back. go we'll be right back. parking is where the money is, though. can you imagine what this place pulls in on parking alone? alright, no more talking about parking lots. a lot of these are compact spots. it's not pretty. progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents, but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us. we still planning to head out around the third quarter? let's not talk about leaving before we're actually at the game. it■s hard eating healthy. unless you happen to be a dog.

what happens when we welcome change? we can make emergency medicine possible at 40,000 feet. instead of burning our past for power, we can harness the energy of the tiny electron. we can create new ways to connect. rethinking how we communicate to be more inclusive than ever. with app, cloud and anywhere workspace solutions, vmware helps companies navigate change. faster. vmware. welcome change. some people have minor joint pain, plus have high blood pressure. they may not be able to take just anything for pain. that's why doctors recommend tylenol®. it won't raise blood pressure the way that advil®, aleve®, or motrin® sometimes can.

for trusted relief, trust tylenol®. i brought in ensure max protein, with thirty grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks! (sighs wearily) here i'll take that! (excited yell) woo-hoo! ensure max protein. with thirty grams of protein, one gram of sugar, and nutrients to support immune health.

that does it for "deadline white house" on this monday. the beat with ari melber starts right now. >> ayman, all i've got to say, there's a lot going on. you've been pretty. >> a very busy hour dealing with ukraine, russia, the politics, the olympics. you know how it goes on a monday. >> we appreciate all the ayman we can get every week, whenever you pop up uncolliding the weekend. appreciate you. >> thanks my friend. welcome to "the beat." i'm ari melber. we begin with the power struggle inside the r