>> joe! doctor nick to help us take us off the air tonight. and on that note, i wish you a good night from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news. thank you for staying up late with us. with us. i want to start an eye with something that seems like a small thing, but is one of those small things that when you scratch the surface a little bit, it starts to look like the symptom of a larger problem. vice president i want to start tonight with kamala harris was in the kind of seems like a small thing, it's one of those small things that when you scratch a car accident on the surface a little bed starts to look like the symptom of a monday, in larger problem. vice president kamala harris washington. don't was in a car accident on monday, in washington. worry, everyone is don't worry, everyone's fine no one was hurt, it was a one fine, no car accident, meaning that one was hurt. what happened was the car she it was a one car accident, meaning that what happened was is the car she was traveling in rain into something. here is was traveling in ran into how the something. here's the washington post washington post described it. described it. the secret service agent the secret service agent driving

harrison an suv struck the curb of a downtown tunnel hard enough, that the vehicles tire needed to be replaced, bringing the motorcade to a standstill. harris had to be transferred to another vehicle in the motorcade, so agents could safely speared her to the white house. like i said, small incident in the grand scream of things, car hits a curb, nobody gets hurt, vice president makes it safely to the white house. and yet, the post carol leonnig reported that things about the episode had both the vice president and the secret servers leadership scratching their heads. first, there is the issue of, how today agent train to drive the most precious cargo in the country have a one car accident on a cleared roadway. when the president or the vice president travels in a motorcade, the streets are empty, you can see right there. so that part is weird. and other red flag is what the secret service agents did immediately afterwards, when they sent a message alerting senior leadership about what it happened, the agents reported

that a mechanical failure had forced agents to transfer harris when other vehicle the secret service director was just one month into the job, after being appointed by president biden. he had to learn from other agents that a mechanical failure was not what happened the post reports that the incident concern both the secret service director and the vice president and revived worries about the agency's history of concealing its mistakes because maybe this episode doesn't seem like the biggest deal on its own but the secret service they have been having a heck of a few months because the whole issue of the secret service apparently to leading a whole bunch of other texts from january 6th, the day of the attack on the capitol. and, january 5th, the day before. nbc's julia ainsley report just last week that the secret service took the phones of 24 agents involved in the january 6th the response and turn them over to the inspector general

for the department of homeland security. but that didn't happen until the summer which is a year and a half after the january 6th insurrection. it's unclear whether any of the missing text messages from that period will ever be recovered. and getting access to the communications of secret service agents from january 6th would be super important for understanding what went down that day, because as we learn from the january 6th committee hearings, secret service agents were involved in some of the most pivotal moments of that day. cassidy hutchinson, a top aide to trump chief of staff, she testified been told that day of an altercation in president trump's suv a.b. between trump and ahead of the secret service detail, bobby angle, because angela would not drive trump to the capitol to join the rioters. >> the president said something to the effect of, i'm the effing president, taking up to the capitol now. to which bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the west

wing, the president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab the steering wheel, and mr. engel grabbed his arm, said sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel we are going back to the west wing, we're not going to the capital. >> mr. trump then used his free hand to lunge towards bobby engle, and when mr. renata had recounted the story to me, he motioned towards his clavicle's. >> when cassidy hutchinson says mr. ornado, was telling her story, she is referring to tony ornato, who is kind of a central figure in all this drama around the secret service. he was an agent on trump's protective detail, for his first two years as president, before he left to go work in secret service headquarters. but then trump brought him back, not as a secret service agent, but as a top official in the west wing, a deputy chief of staff. that was an unprecedented move, no one had ever heard of a secret service agent being put

into a job like that, especially because of the strictly apolitical nature of the secret service. in the aftermath of cactus city hutchinson's testimony, an anonymous secret service officials told both reporters that tony ornato, and bobby engle would testify that the altercation, the one cassidy hutchison described, that never happened. that neither of those men ever did give that testimony. >> a few days after hutchinson's testimony, the head of the secret service up and quit. a few weeks later, tony ornato quit the secret service as well. and then there is the unsettling question the still hangs over january six when it comes to the secret service, and vice president mike pence. the vice president told ahead of his detail that day, i'm not getting in that car when the secret service try to get him into a vehicle. some members of the january 6th -- that's because pence had reason to worry, worry that the secret service was trying to ferry him

away from the capitol, and not just for his safety. jamie raskin called pence's refusal, he called that six of the most chilling words in american history. and now, today, we have this. an ongoing seditious conspiracy trial, the far-right paramilitary group, the oath keepers, for their roles in the attack on the capitol today, a former member of that group testified that its leader claimed to have a contact in the secret service. and he said that months before the january 6th attack you overheard oath keepers leader stewart rhodes having a phone conversation with someone road said was a secret service agent. rhodes was discussing parameters under which the of keepers would operate at a trump rally. it's possible contact between stewart rhodes and the secret service is particularly noteworthy because another oath keeper had testified, that following the january six, stewart rhodes tried to reach president trump through some kind of intermediary, could that also have been a secret service agent? we don't know.

for the record, stewart rhodes's lawyer said that knows that conversation took place on january six. the january six committee has announced its next impossibly last hearing for one week from today. next thursday, the 13th. there will likely be more revelations from that as well. but boy, a lot of the questions we still have about january six seem to revolve around the secret service. what exactly is going on around there. joining us now is nbc news homeland security correspondent, julia ainsley. julia, thank you for joining us tonight. >> thanks for having me, alex. >> i know you've got in a statement this evening from the secret service and response to the claim in court today by the oath keepers. all read a part of. it the secret service says, who

are aware that vigils from the oath keepers have contacted us in the past, to make inquiries. it's not uncommon for various organizations to contact that's concerning security restrictions and activities that are permissible in proximity to our protected sites. julia, it's not a denial that there was contact between the oath keepers and the secret service. how do you parse that statement? >> yeah, i would definitely not see it as a denial, alex, in fact i think they're normalizing this. they're trying to explain that as long as they aren't putting the duty of law enforcement, of enforcing laws and arming people like the oath keepers, it's okay for those conversations to occur. and other, words it would've been okay for someone like stewart rhodes to be a contact with the secret service especially regarding security for a van. this is an event that they were talking about, just -- before the january 6th insurrection, when the oath keepers would have been walking people into our rally in order to i guess protect them from protesters who might have been gathering outside the rally.

they're saying that the -- there may have been conversations between stewart rose and someone in the secret service about that. it's not clear whether or not that actually happened. who they would've been talking to. i will say, if that kind of conversations going to happen that's something that would normally be established through official channels. something they'd want to keep transparent and very much part of a security plan, not anything that made go beneath the surface so that it would look like there's some kind of cooperation or agreement with the ideals that are motivating events, or a group like that in the first place. again, lots of questions about the secret service, not only what we learned yesterday but their involvement in january six. and even more of a mystery, why we don't yet know about their communications on that day. >> i think it's shocking to some people. the idea that stewart rhodes, head of a group that a lot of people consider a domestic terrorist organization, would

be phoning directly a secret service agent. the secret service seems to want to stay in that statement, nothing to see here folks. and positions itself akin to the national park service, things happen here, -- logistical information about security. but let the conversation that we're hearing about in court today suggests exactly what you say. a direct and unidentified conversation between these two entities. the head of the oath keepers and the secret service. normally, did we know that the secret service was fielding these kind of inquiries, is it part of the institutional service provided by the agency? >> what would be normal would be say you are organizing a march or rally that would involve a number of law enforcement organization -- park believes the secret service is aware of how many people you've requested a permit in order to gather with a group.

those could be official conversations through official channels, it wouldn't be something coming off and having a quick cell phone conversation. this does seem unusual. but i will say from my experience, from covering the secret service, covering things like january six, and the secret service's involvement in january six. i often find that there is a lot that happens, at an individual level between the secret service, agents themselves doing things, that don't always get brought up to the level of senior leadership. it doesn't always get brought up to the press secretary. it very well could be that we're getting a statement tonight from the press secretary they just found out about this today. i can give you many examples of this. one would be -- last week about the fact that the secret service leadership went in and confiscated 24 cell phones from agents involved in january six. we understand that there was a lot of friction between those agents. and the leadership that confiscated those phones. it's not really as centralized law enforcement agency in the way that you may see, perhaps the metropolitan police to pop --

oftentimes there can be -- and i've seen it before, i've seen things happens within the agency that don't always get spread around. although they do have accountability measures in place it's not often that everybody knows what every part of the agencies doing. that may have happened in this case. we don't know enough yet to know if this wasn't authorized or sanction communication. frankly, we're not learning that from the statement. tonight >> we might never learn. that you mentioned the 24 phones that were turned over with the permission of those agents are against their well. do we have an expectation that any of the text messages exchange on january 5th and sixth are at all recover blood display? you have any sense of what might be on those phones that still relevant to the investigation? >> what i've been told is that those phones were restored to factory saddens because of what they did systemwide to all

their phones in early 2020. one it's not clear what can be recovered. i understand the investigation goes on, and there's a criminal investigation and the dhs has said as a criminal investigation, we can go on on that investigation itself. what the dhs idea is actually doing to get those tax messages, that investigation in and of itself is a broad box, members of congress have called for the da jess ig to be forthcoming about his work there. that's a separate issue. but really at the heart of it, the questions you're asking, the questions i'm asking, the questions we're all asking tonight, what was the secret services role in january six. and now from what we're learning and cole, what was the relationship between groups like the oath keepers, could there have been individual relationships between hhs and the leaders of some of those groups. -- some kind of authorized, very normal conversation, more questions to ask because what learning every day how essential their role was in january six. >> by the way, it's not just

the oath keepers that people of questions. for the proud boys as well. we know we have our first probably today, germany bertolino, pleaded guilty and has agreed to cooperate the reason why we know any about this correspondence because of one of the other proud boys, oath keepers, whose pleaded guilty so we can learn much more from proud boys who are pleading guilty to seditious conspiracy. and d. c. news correspondent julia ainsley, thank you for the great reporting, thank you for joining me tonight. >> thanks. >> one piece of breaking news to let you know about, the new york times reports tonight that the justice department stopped counter intelligence official has told donald trump's lawyers at the doj believe that trump still has not returned all the documents he took from the white house. in other words, even after the fbi raided his beach club, mar-a-lago, with 11,000 government documents, the doj believes trump still has more. the times report that after the doj told trump's lawyers of his suspicions, one of his attorney suggested hiring a forensic

firm to search for more documents at trump's properties. trump initially went along with that plan until he was convinced by his more combative lawyer to take a more confrontational approach to the department of dust. as the lawyer who wanted to cooperate has since basically been sidelined. as for what happens now, the times notes, it's not clear what steps the justice department might take to retrieve any material it thinks mr. trump still holds. that's a developing story. up next tonight, -- impromptu press conference about the report that he paid for women to have an abortion. it did not go well. the reporter who broke the story before the nation and from the daily beast, he'll join us live coming up next. herschel walker reports on the woman who he paid of an abortion, let's say didn't go well. the reporter who broke the story, for the nation and for the daily beast, he'll join us live, coming up next. , coming up next

are you tired of clean clothes that just don't smell clean? downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters keep your laundry smelling fresh waaaay longer than detergent alone. if you want laundry to smell fresh for weeks, make sure you have downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters. before we begin, i'd like to thank our sponsor, liberty mutual. they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. and by switching, you could even save $652. thank you, liberty mutual. now, contestants ready? go! why? why? only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪

new astepro allergy. only pay for what you need. no allergy spray is faster. with the speed of astepro, almost nothing can slow you down. because astepro starts working in 30 minutes, while other allergy sprays take hours. and astepro is the first and only 24-hour steroid free allergy spray. now without a prescription. astepro and go. my asthma felt anything but normal. a blood test helped show my asthma is driven by eosinophils, which nucala helps reduce. nucala is a once-monthly add-on injection for severe eosinophilic asthma.

nucala is not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. ask your asthma specialist about a nunormal with nucala. according to the article, the we desperately need more affordable housing, but san francisco takes longer than anywhere to issue new housing permits. proposition d is the only measure that speeds up construction

of affordable new homes by removing bureaucratic roadblocks. while prop e makes it nearly impossible to build more housing. and the supervisors who sponsored e know it. join me, habitat for humanity and the carpenters union in rejecting prop e and supporting prop d to build more affordable housing

woman who says you paid her to have an abortion is also the mother of one of your children. it seems like that's an easy way -- >> out i had more candidates. not why i did reach out to anyone. i said no, that's when i mean when i say no. that's a lie. the abortion thing is false. it's a lie. >> that was herschel walker, republican candidate for a georgia senate seat. he wants a national abortion ban. speaking today at a campaign event. reporters covered walker with questions about recent reporting that he not only

encouraged to pay for an abortion for a woman who was involved with, in 2009. he actually fathered a child with that same woman. and walker responded to those reporters with yet more denials. we think. initially it sounded like walker was saying the allegations are all a lie, but then shortly after he said on the other hand it's nothing to be ashamed of. we think. we're on top of that are maybe in tandem with that walker seemed to not patently deny the allegation that he threatened his ex-wife, and was violent towards her and their son. >> my ex-wife, in the past, has nothing to do with this moment here. -- what christian was talking about, i don't know. but as i said, if anything happened, nothing to be ashamed of, -- >> the reporter who broke the story, that's sparked this herschel walker saga, is what -- roger reported that a woman who asked not to be identified out of privacy concerns.

had an abortion in 2009. after she became pregnant with walkers child. she told the daily beast that walker reimbursed her for the abortion. to backup her claims, she had a 575 dollar receipt from the abortion clennett, i get well card from walker, and a bank deposit with the image of a personal check signed by walker. according to the daily beast, walker asked the woman to terminate the pregnancy because it was quote, not the right time for him. then last night, as we were on the air, roger solemn burger broke the story. -- in 2009, also had a child with them. the daily beast release that additional information about the woman's identity after walker denied that he knew the woman's identity during a fox news interview. walker also bashed the woman for remaining anonymous. she in turn toward the daily beast that quote, our chief concern with revealing our name was because she's the mother of one of walker's own children. and she wanted to protect your family's privacy as best that she could well also coming forward with the truth.

the daily beast says, walker has publicly acknowledge a child as a zone, and the women prove that she is the child's mother. in the meantime, herschel walker continues his denials, or whatever they are exactly. joining us now is roger solemn burger, daily beast political reporter who broke the story last. night roger, thank you for being here. thank you for your reporting. >> thank you so much, alex. >> i want to get your thoughts on the scope of this saga. politico earlier this week published a piece that seemed to corroborate the same story that. you told the daily beast that

suggested that walkers abortion story was an open secret in georgia political circles. you are on msnbc earlier today with my colleague chris hayes and it suggested that that story that's being mentioned in political, may not be the same one is the one you reported on in the daily beast. they are by suggesting that there could be more than one woman that herschel walker paid to have an abortion, is that where we are at this point in the story? >> i would first start by focusing back on that one woman, first and foremost, every time and she's incredibly brave. she's remarkable, she has some really remarkable things to say. i encourage everybody to read our second report that identifies her as the mother of one of the children and see what she has to say about that, i'll talk more about that later. the political report that came out seem to imply that this allegation had been out there, washington post reported actually just tonight, that somebody had been advising the walker campaign. vetting him earlier. that allegation never showed up. one of the only on record source at politico article you, she walked it back later. she said i don't really think that this might be the same allegation. you're asking me, personally, i don't have any reason to believe that it is the same allegation. from what i know about my

source, and about her story, about how i came into it. i have no reason to believe that it's the same. and there may well be more. >> i'll quote your source again, a very courageous woman. when reacting to the news that walker said he doesn't know where, she said sure i was stunned, but it also doesn't shock me that maybe there's just so many of us that he truly doesn't remember. but then again, if he really forgot about it, the abortion, that says something to. indeed, it does say something too. does she think he legitimately forgot about that so this is all political expediency? >> she is open to the possibility that i guess he would be able to forget about something like this. which again, as she said that's another statement in and of itself. --

she did speak to a lot about the actual knowledge of her relationship with walker, her memory of it. -- and then she got pregnant the second time, and the second time walker said he was. also not convenient for her to have the child. so, -- in the report she said that walker was not responsible for the child that we didn't have. and then when we had a child, he wasn't responsible for that one either. she really values the fact that she had the chance to make the choice both times. she's not ashamed -- it's part of what makes her so she is. she says for both times as well, i'd also like to know, that walker in his denial today seem to imply that maybe this woman was a different mother of a different child. i think he was saying that to imply that perhaps this woman doesn't exist. after he said that, today, we

recorded very plainly exactly which child this woman is the mother of. he said that he hadn't reached out to her he said why would i have to making a pretty obvious, why he'd reach out to her. she still hasn't returned to the best of my knowledge. that's what she told me today. and i really cannot say why. >> well, i mean the callous disregard all just say it. this woman has faced from herschel walker and to some degree's campaign. i think one of the more under discussed aspects of your reporting is that this woman all read the quote this woman a registered democrat, who still communicates with walker said

that walker did not tell her about his plan to run for the senate before's announcement in august 2021. since then, however, one of walker's top surrogates had asked repeatedly if she would be willing to vouch for his character, reaching out as recently as this august. this woman, who had an abortion, paid for by herschel walker, the contact she's had from the campaign, is being asked of that for herschel locker's character. how she had any contact with him between august, and when the story broke, do you know? and furthermore, what do you surmise from the relationship between herschel walker and his campaign in terms of transparency? >> those are great questions. the woman tells me that she has

not been in contact with them since that august outrage. they reached out to war, the contacts for the viewers out there, when the woman was contacted first, and i asked a vouch for walker's character, that was after we broke the story, the first story that revealed that walker who's an outspoken critic of absentee fathers in the black community, pretty specifically, that he had a secret son. that he did not appear active in raising. and that was this woman son. after that story broke, a day later, i got tipped to another child. and when that story was about to break somewhere in there is where the campaign reached out to her and said, would you like to say, i know what they said, but i won't save here. would you like to vouch for his

character is the way that she wanted it frays. it was in response to that, she was not aware that walker had another secret child. she did not know that at the time. >> wow, wow, it's a story of staggering apoxsee on every level. roger, i have many more questions to ask you. it will leave it there for tonight. but thank you for your continued degette reporting on this incredibly important story. -- thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you so much, alex. >> we'll have more on the herschel walker story just ahead. today, reporters about the chance to ask his opponents senator raphael warnock about his allegations. we'll have his response on what it says about the very, very different campaigns that are being conducted in the state of georgia. new york times columnist charles gloved joins us, coming up next. coming up next. but my clothes still smelled. until i finally found new downy rinse and refresh! it doesn't just cover odors, it helps remove them up to 3 times better than detergent alone! find new downy rinse & refresh

in the fabric softener aisle.

oh yeah, that is them. (that is howard) yeah, that's on howard's campus. ohhh, she's so powerful, she carried on the family legacy. we were blown away. (chuckles) i not only was a student and an undergrad, but i've been a professor there for twenty years, so it's really a special moment to know that i had a family member who over a hundred years prior have walk these grounds. it's deeply uplifting. yes, it is. we're walking in their footsteps.

reverend warnock is running a

nasty dishonest campaign. perfect for washington. the reverend doesn't even tell my full story. my true story. warnock's a preacher, he doesn't tell the truth. he doesn't even believe in redemption. i'm rachelle walker, saved by grace, up i approve this message. >> that was a brand-new rod released by herschel walker.

amid allegations that the supposedly pro-life walker paid for an extra friends abortion. the republican candidates now trying to focus the debate back on his opponent, senator raphael warnock, calling him a nasty and dishonest. there's only one problem with that argument, senator warnock has not actually said much of anything about walker and his latest scandal. instead, the reverend senator has done basically what he's always done throughout his short political career, he's taking the high road. -- as senator warnock today, responding to reporters questions about the scandal surrounding herschel walker. >> you're opponent, herschel walker, has denied allegations against the story -- denied that he also had a child with a woman in question here. do you believe him? >> i believe that my position on this has been consistent. it is not changed. that a patients room is to narrow and grab the space -- united states government. i believe in women. and in the right to make their

own health care decisions. and i think the people of georgia, need a senator that will stand with them. >> i believe in women and their right to make their own health care decisions. throughout that press conference, senator warnock repeatedly declined to attack his opponent for his apparent approximately issue of abortion and instead focus like a laser, on the stark legal realities facing georgia women, and georgia voters generally. that kind of above the fray, relentlessly on message discipline from senator warnock 's exactly what voters have come to expect from him. because that's the kind of politician-y that roy filed warnock just is. contrast that with his opponent, who spent the day fumbling's response to a growing sandal and interview after interview. here was herschel walker responding to the abortion allegations of conservative radio host hugh hewitt >> i know nothing about any woman having an abortion.

so, they can keep coming at me like that. if that had happened, there's nothing to be ashamed of their. people have done that, i know nothing about it. if i know about, it i've been honest talk about. it but i know nothing about it. >> i know nothing about it, if it had happened i would've said it, because there's nothing to be ashamed of. but i know nothing about it. this is a choice before georgia voters. joining us now is charles blow, opinion columnist for the new york times, msnbc political analyst. charles, thanks for joining me. what do you make about the study in these two campaigns, warnock is a relentlessly disciplined politician. despite the fact that he's a relatively newcomer. what do you think of his strategy for not engaging on? this >> as you pointed out, it's consistent for him. i think raphael warnock in addition to being a quality candidate, has had the great -- horrible opponents.

he kind of lets them collapse on to themselves. that's what he's hoping will happen, that's what his campaign is hoping will happen. walker on the other hand has a machine that's trying to ram through one of the most horrific, unqualified, horrible candidates ever to run for the senate. coming up against an electorate, on the republican side that's thirsty -- they happen in 2020 was earth shattering to georgia. this isn't even about warnock and walker, it's about who gets to make the choice. and republicans, -- in georgia had already been able to call the shots. and that election, led by black

voters, other voters of color, the change that dynamic, and that shock to everyone. so, this is just a kind of tribal entrenchment, they don't really care very much about what walkers being accused, of they don't care how good warnock is, they care about whether or not they'll be able to prove that they still get to call the shots. >> you've written about this. earlier this year, in september, you wrote about the importance of the fact that herschel walker is a black man. the importance for georgia republicans. that they have a black man that they can vote for. you say, mister walker, i believe you when you say that you're not that smart. you're the personification of a game. being played by georgia republicans. a wager that any black republican, in your case, an empty intellectual vessel, can beat the black democrat. a man who's thoroughly qualified not utterly dissent. can you explain that more fully, why it matters that herschel mark -- >> multiple levels of the race

being -- two candidates. first, it was donald trump who chosen. donald trump went into his nominating him that summer. having spent two years on a war against nfl players, more specifically but all players generally speaking who are being very vocal and saying we're standing up for black lives. he found a black athlete that people love, who would say, he's not racist, and i know racism and he's just saying respect the, flag that's exactly the speech that mcculloch gave in that convention. donald trump didn't forget that. so, he chose -- handpicked walker to run. part of that calculation was that he was the anti colin kaepernick. part of it was also that there was a black guy that had won, and he was having to defend that c, and i have a black guy who i like.

>> i have my black. >> i have my black guy. he thrust him into that, they didn't really run a vigorous campaign against -- in the primary. so, he coast through a victory of donald trump and now they're stuck in a situation where they have these two candidates, they have to vote it's intense, so they have -- and they also stick to themselves, even though they supported all -- disenfranchisement laws, that -- very specifically at black people. and voting for a black guy. so, it can't be that bad. >> it's a way to reestablish their anti racist -- while supporting someone who's utterly unqualified for office. it's also the question of what the ascension of walker to the national stage does in terms of race, i do want to call your attention to britney cooper, who's a professor -- vin tweeting on this. and she has some very strong words for herschel walker.

she says when i see the walking stereotype of blackmail mediocrity that's herschel walker, i'm reminded that a significant swath of white folks need this to be who black people are. who black men are. violent, idiotic, brute, immoral, deadbeats. the gop support for herschel walker's candidacy is designed as a continual installed and assault on all strive to be black an excellent, or hell, just black indecent. >> [laughs] i will say this, he is being used as a tool in that way. all those things are true, and he'll do exactly what they say. >> right. >> if all those things are true, and he were liberal, -- if all those things, if he's -- none of those. thanks excellent. he's a no go. the fact that he'll be obedient, and do as told, makes all of this okay for them, and it does make a bit of a caricature of

blackness. it is an insult to black competence. what they're doing in georgia. >> the hypocrisy, a leave it at the hypocrisy in this moment. between the christiane italy, the absentee father, the message of redemption, the lies, we're in one hell of a long run. opinion columnist for the new york times, thanks for your -- we have more to come, stay with us.

this is going to be great. taking the shawl off. is he looking at my hairline? is plaque psoriasis making you rethink your everyday choices? otezla is a pill, not a cream or injection that can help people with plaque psoriasis achieve clearer skin. and no routine blood tests required. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla can cause serious allergic reactions.

it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. doctors have been prescribing otezla for over 8 years. don't hesitate. ask your doctor about otezla today. my asthma felt anything but normal. ♪ ♪

it was time for a nunormal with nucala. nucala is a once-monthly add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma that can mean less oral steroids. not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. ask your asthma specialist about a nunormal with nucala. we have some breaking news

tonight, out of foreigners or new york this evening, president biden just made some extraordinary and highly alarming comments about vladimir putin's war in the ukraine and the threat of nuclear war. biden said the risk of nuclear all my guidance at the highest level since 1962. quote, for the first time since the cuban missile crisis, we have a direct threat of the use of a nuclear weapon if in fact things continue down the path they're going. we haven't faced the prospect of armageddon since kennedy and the cuban missile crisis. joining us to help parse those comments and understand where we out is ben rhodes, former national security adviser for president obama. ben, thanks for joining me tonight. >> thanks, alex. >> first your reaction to president biden. using the word armageddon, and recalling the 1962 in the cuban missile crisis? >> well, i think it's a shorthand. armageddon is the shorthand for nuclear conflagrated. in the reality is, we have a threat from vladimir putin about the use of nuclear

weapons. the distinction i draw from the cuban missile crisis is that was the u.s. and soviet newman, superpowers a nuclear standoff, for nuclear exchange could've been armageddon what we have here is a threat, really the potential use of a tactical nuclear weapon in ukraine, that would obviously be awful escalation for the people of ukraine, and potential risk of de-escalation of the conflict. we're not quite at the level, again, concerned where things -- but i think what he's reflecting, this is the first time in a very long time, decades, but we've had to take seriously the possibility that nuclear weapons can be used. that's something that people should be taking seriously. >> i would say, that, and to the end biden did talk about tactical nukes. he said i don't think there's any such thing as the ability to easily use kept glow nuclear

weapons, and not end up with armageddon. do you agree with that? >> well, yeah, -- i think people should keep in mind, nuclear weapon and that some of the kind that we're talking about, cuban missile crisis, is the kind of weapon that destroys cities. strategic nuclear weapons. tactical nuclear weapons could be of a yield that is a fraction of the yield of the atomic bomb that we used. any nuclear weapon use is horrific, a catastrophe, assuring us into a new age that we don't want to be in. and it's horrible for anybody that's in the vicinity, not just of the explosion, but of the nuclear fallout for it. i think the risk of armor getting comes on whether or not a, the weapons used, and be things escalate to the point where the united states and russia are in a conflict. i do think we have lots of

steps to go through. we've seen threats from putin, we haven't seen the u.s. making reference to the fact that russia's nuclear arsenal can put on different postures. we haven't seen russia acting on that threat yet. then there's a secondary question, what might happen after the use of nuclear weapons. we have further to go before i think we're getting into the kinds of nuclear standoff scenarios to be learned about from the cuban missile crisis but i think what the president 's comments do reflect as for the first time in a very long time we've been having this conversation and this is not a conversation that anybody wants to have. >> indeed. you wonder -- fund-raiser just moments ago, i'm trying to figure out what putin's off ramp where does he find a way out where it is a fine of self in a position that he doesn't only lose face but lose a significant power within russia i mean that's something i think we've all wondered, do you think at this point that there's an off ramp for putin? do you think he's even looking for one? >> nothing putin suggest that the mobilization that he's done within russia with how much he's personally invested in

this war. the reality of urban wristbands, frankly, there is no safe -- putin. he's already failed. he failed to conquer ukraine. and he failed to conquer kyiv. he's even failing to hold a territories he wanted to act next and ukraine. he doesn't even control the territory he announced for the russian people in the world, he was annexing. so, we want an off ramp of sorts of visa from an escalation in use of nuclear weapons. but a face saving situation for vladimir putin, might not be possible right now. and that's a circumstance where you don't know whether putin is cornered, he decides to escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. frankly, we don't know somebody needs to follow that order inside of russia. there's a lot of uncertainty here. there's a lot of danger for vladimir putin taking that step. china, biggest benefactor in the world, does not want to see this happen no country in the world wants to see the taboo around nuclear weapons broken. vladimir putin has risks to as he considers whether to take that step.

but this question of how the war in ukraine ends, i don't think anybody knows the answer to that question. not joe biden, vladimir putin, not volodymyr zelenskyy. that's what makes this decision and uncertain situation. >> you mentioned, xi jinping, and modi in india, someone that's cooled couldn't's jets, marginally, and all this. what do you expect there bilateral talks, trilateral talks between the u.s., china, and india, to make sure someone's talking to vladimir putin, and talk him off the ledge in terms of nuclear? >> alex, it's a great play. what we've seen is reports of the u.s. sending messages to russia warning them against doing less. i'm sure it's happening. i'm also sure -- u.s. is reaching out to china and saying, look, we haven't been getting along very well, we may even have different views about the war new crane, the sanctions we propose. -- russian oil. far above than what we won in the united states. but, nobody would win from a celerio and which the use of nuclear weapons, even a snow lab, tactical nuclear weapons in ukraine.

it would usher in a new world in which -- >> even broken. it would escalate the conflict. china really does not want that. so, i think the u.s. going to china having the chinese lean on the russians to gather with us and other countries as part of what's happening right now. >> ben rhodes, former deputy for president obama, thank you for rolling for me on the breaking news. and thanks for making time to join us. we'll be right back. and forgot where she was. [buzz] you can always spot a first timer. gain flings with oxi boost and febreze. new astepro allergy. now available without a prescription. spot a first timer. astepro is the first and only 24-hour steroid free spray. while other allergy sprays take hours astepro starts working in 30 minutes. so you can... astepro and go. that is it for us tonight,

we'll see, tomorrow ali velshi is in for -- . >> think you, good to see you, you have a great evening, we'll see you tomorrow night. >> >> you as well. >> can an october surprise change the outcome of the midterms this year? we are 33 days away from finding an answer to that

question. the first major october surprise of the election season arrived on monday, with the daily beast reporting the georgia republican senator and antichoice candidate herschel walker paid for his then girlfriend's abortion in 2009. the daily beast has now reported that that woman is also the mother of one of her four children. we're going to have more reporting on that later in the show. republicans however continue to shop -- and recent polling says that he is in a tight race with the democratic incumbent, senator raphael warnock. there is one october surprise that could change the course of the midterm elections, and it's coming from over 70,000 miles away. in saudi arabia, opec plus, the alliance of oil producing nations led by saudi arabia and russia, announced a 2 million barrels per day cut in oil production yesterday. opec plus decision could lead to a potential spike in gas prices, just 33 days before the midterms. today, president joe biden had a one word reaction to opec plus's decision, disappointment. >> what is your reaction to the opec plus decision? >> disappointment. we are looking at alternatives that we may have. >> opec decision comes after the biden administration spent more than