i want to start tonight with something that kind of seems like a small thing, but it's one of those small things that when you scratch the surface a, bit starts to look like a symptom of a larger problem. vice president kamala harris was in a car accident on monday, in washington. don't worry, everyone is monday. don't worry. it is fine. no one was hurt. it was a one car accident. the car she was traveling in ran into something. here's how "the washington post" described it, the secret service agent driving harris in an suv struck the curve of a downtown tunnel hard enough that the tire needed to be replaced bringing the motorcade to a stand still. she had to be transferred to another vehicle in the motorcade so they could safely spirit her to the white house. like i said, small incident in the grand scheme of thing. car hits a curve, nobody gets hurt. vice president makes it safely to the white house. and yet, the post reported things about the episode had had the vice president and the

secret service leadership scratching their heads. first, there is the issue of how did an agent trained to drive the most precious cargo in the country have a one car accident on a cleared roadway. the president and the vice president travels in a motorcade, the streets are empty. so that part is weird. and the other red flag is with the secret service agents did immediately afterwards. when they sent a message alerting senior leadership about what had happened, the agents reported that a mechanical failure forced agents to trance harris to another vehicle. the secret service director who is just one month into the job after being appoint bid president biden, secret service director had to learn from other agents that a mechanical failure is not what happened. the post reports the incident concerned both the secret service director and the vice president and revived worries about the agency's history of concealing its mistakes.

the secret service is having a heck of a few months. there is a whole issue of the secret service decleating a bunch of their text messages from january 6, the day of the attack on the capitol, and january 5th, the day before. julia anzly reported just last week that the secret service took the phones of 24 agents involved in the january 6th response and turned them over to the inspector general. but that didn't happen until this summer. it was a year and a half after the january 6 insurrection. it's unclear whether any of the missing text messages from that period will ever be recovered. it would be super important to understand what went down that day. as wlernd from the committee hearings, secret service agents were involved in the most pivotal moments of that day.

a top aide to trump's chief of staff testified to being told that day of an altercation in president trump's suv between trump and head of the secret service detail because engel would not drive trump to the capitol to join the rioters. >> said i'm the f'ing president, take me to the capitol now. bobby said, sir, we have to go back to the west wing. the president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel and mr. engel grabbed his arm said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. we're going back to the west wing. we're not going to the capitol. mr. trump then used his free hand to lunge toward him.

>> when she says mr. ornado who is telling her this story, sh he is referring to tony ornado, a central figure in this drama around the secret service. he was an agent on trump's protective detail for the first two years as president until he left to go work at secret service headquarters. then trump brought him back. not as a secret service agent but a top official in the west wing, a deputy chief of staff. that was an unprecedented move. no one ever heard of a secret service agent being put in a position like that because of the apolitical nature of the secret service. in the aftermath of cassidy hutchison's testimony, secret service officials told reporters that both tony ornado and bobby engel would testify that the altercation that cassidy hutchison describes, that never happened. but neither of those men ever did give that testimony. a few days after hutchison's testimony, the head of the

secret service just up and quit. a few weeks later, tony ornado quit the secret service as well. and then there is the unsettling question that still hang officials january 6th when it comes to the secret service and mike pence. the vice president famously told the head of the detail that day, i'm not getting into that car. the secret service tried to get him into a vehicle. some members of the january 6 committee suggested that was because pence had reason to worry. worry that secret service was trying to ferry him way from the capitol and not just for his safety. committee member called pence's refusal i'm not getting in that car, he said that is six of the most chilling words in american history. and now today, we have this. today, a former member of that group testified that leader claimed to have a contact in the

secret service. and he said that months before the january 6 attack he overheard oath keepers leader stewart rhodes having a phone conversation with someone rhodes said was a secret service agent. rhodes was discussing parameters under which the oath keepers would operate at a trump rally. this possible contact between stewart rhodes and the secret service is particularly note worthy because another oath keeper testified that on january 6th, stewart rhodes tried to reach president trump through a immediate airy co. that also have been a secret service agent? we don't know. for the record, stewart rhodes says no such conversation took place on january 6th. and the january 6 committee officially announced its next and possibly last hearing for one week from today, next thursday, the 13th. a lot of the questions we have about january 6 revolve around

the secret service. what exactly is going on over there? joining us now is nbc news homeland security correspondent julia anzly. julia, thank you for joining us tonight. >> thank you for having me. >> i know you have gotten a statement this evening from the secret service in response to the claim made in court today by the oath keepers. will i'll read a part of it. the secret service says, we are aware that individuals from the oath keepers have contacted us in the past to make fors. it is not uncommon for various organizations to contact us concerning security restrictions and activities that are permissible in proximity to our protected sites. julia, that is not a denial there was contact between the oath keepers and the secret service. how do you parse that statement? >> yeah. the i would definitely not see it as a denial, alex. in fact, i think they're normalizing this. pt 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. in other words, it would have been okay for someone like stewart rhodes to be in contact with the secret service especially regarding security for an event. and this was an vent where they were talking about a north carolina in september of 2020 just before the january 6th insurrection when the oath keepers would have been walking them around to protect them from people at the rally. we learned today in court that there may have been conversations between stewart rhodes and someone in the secret service about. that but it's not clear whether or not that actual i had happened, who they would have been talking to. i will say if that kind of conversation is going to happen, that's something that would normally be established through official channels. it is something they want to keep transparent and very much a part of a security plan. not anything that may kind of go

beneath the surface so it would look like there is cooperation or agreement with the ideals that are motivating an event or a group like that. again, there is a lot of questions about the secret service. not only what we learned yesterday but their involvement in january 6 and more of a mystery, request we don't know about the communications on that day. >> yeah. i think it's shocking to some people the idea that stewart rhodes would be phoning directly a secret service agent. they want to say, nothing to see her folks and try to position itself akin to the national park service. things happen here and we give people logistical information about security. but the conversation that we're hearing about in court today suggests exactly what you say, a direct and sort of unidentified conversation between these two

enemies, the head of the oath keepers and secrete service. did we know they were fielding these inquiries? is this the institutional service provided by the agency? >> what is norm sal you're organizing a rally, you go to the park police. the secret service is aware of how many people because you requested a permit to gather with a group that big. those would be official conversations through official channels. it wouldn't be someone coming off and having a quick cell phone conversation with someone. this does seem unusual. i would say covering things like january 6th, i often find that there is a lot that happens at an individual level within the secret service, agents themselves doing things, talking that doesn't always get brought up to the level of senior

leadership. doesn't always get brought up to the level of press secretary. so it very well could be that we're getting a statement tonight from a press secretary that just found out about this today. i can give you an example. one is we had reporting about the fact that they confiscated 24 cell phones from agents involved in january 6 and we understand that there was actually a lot of friction between those agents and the leadership that confiscated the phones. it's not really a centralized law enforcement agency in the way you may see perhaps a metropolitan police department operate. oftentimes there can be silos within the secret service. i've seen things happen within this agency that don't always get spread around. although they do have accountability measures in place. it's not often that everyone knows what every part of the agency is doing. that may have happened in this case. we don't know enough yet to know if this was an authorized or sanctioned communication and frankly we're not learning that

from the statement tonight. >> and we might never learn. you mentioned the 24 phones that were turned over by, you know, with the permission of those agents or against their will. do we have an expectation that they're recoverable at this point? do you have any sense of of what might be on those phones that is still relevant to this investigation? >> i've been told the phones are restored to factory settings because of what they did system wide to all of the phones in early 2021. it's not clear what can be recovered. but i understand this investigation goes on. we should point out that's criminal investigation. they have said it's kranl criminal investigation. what the doj's idea doing to get to the text messages, why it's criminal. that investigation in itself a black box. and many members of congress have called for the dhs-ig to be

more forthcoming about his work there. that's a separate issue. at the heart of it, the questions you're asking and i'm asking and we're all asking tonight, what was the secret service's role in january 6? and now from what we're learning in court, what was the relationship like with groups like the oath keepers? could there have been individual relationships between the groups? or was it as they're suggesting, some kind of authorized very normal conversation? more questions to ask because we're learning every day how essential their role was in january 6. >> by the way, not just the oath keepers that people have questions for. the proud boys to day. we had the first proud boy agreed to cooperate today. the reason we know about the secret service correspondence is because of one of the other oath keepers pleaded guilty so we can learn more from proud boys who are pleading guilty. julia, thank you for the great reporting.

thank you for joining me tonight, julia. >> thanks. one piece of breaking news to let you know about. "the new york times" reports tonight that justice department's top counter intelligence official has told donald trump's lawyers that doj believes 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 and cart add way the documents, the doj believes trump still has more. the "times" reports after the doj told trump's lawyers of the suspicions, one of trump's attorneys suggested hiring a forensic firm to search for more documents. trump initially went along with that until he was convinced to take a confrontational approach. the lawyer has been side behind. as for what happens now, the "times" says, quote, it is not clear what steps they may take

to retrieve any material that they think mr. trump still holds." up next here tonight, herschel walker holds an impromptu press conference about the report that he paid for a woman to have an abortion and let's just say it did not go well. the reporter who broke the story for the nation and for the daily beast will join us live next. aiy beast will join us live next

anchts cording to the article, the woman claims you paid for the abortion and is also the mother of one of your children. >> according to the article, i had more kids. that's why i reached out to him. i said no. that's what i mean. when i said no, i said it's not correct. that's a lie. >> the abortion thing is false. it's a lie. >> that was herschel walker, the republican candidate for georgia senate seat. the man who wants a national aban speaking at a campaign event. reporters covered walk we are questions about recent reporting that he not only encouraged and paid for an abortion for a woman he 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 a lie. but then shortly after that, he said on the other hand, it's nothing to be ashamed of. we think. or on top of that, walker seemed

to at least not patently deny the allegation that he threatened his ex-wife and was violent towards her and their son. >> my ex-wife in my past had nothing to do with what this woman said. anything that happened with my ex-wife or what christian is talking did, i don't know. but as i said, if anything happened, nothing to be ashamed of with my ex-wife and i. we're the best of friends. >> the reporter who broke the story that sparked this week's herschel walker saga is roger sullenberger. he reported a woman that asked not to be identified for privacy concerns had an abortion in 2009 after she became pregnant with walker's child. she told "the daily beast" that walker reimbursed her for the abortion. to back up her claims, she had a $575 receipt from the abortion clinic, a 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 "not the right time for him." then last night as we were on the air, roger sullenberger broke this story the woman also had a child with him. "the daily beast" released that additional information about the woman's identity after walker denied the woman's identity during a fox news interview. walker bashed the woman for remaining anonymous. she in turn told "the daily beast" that her chief concern was revealing her name is because she is the mother of one of walker's own children. and she wanted to protect her family's privacy as best she could and also coming forward with the truth. "the daily beast" says walker has publicly acknowledged the child as his own and the woman proved she is the child's mother. in the meantime, herschel walker continues his denials or whatever they are exactly. joining us now is roger sullenberger, "the daily beast" political reporter that broke the story last night. thank you so much 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. because "politico" earlier this week published a piece that seemed to corroborate the same story you told in the daily beast that suggested that walker's abortion story was an open secret in georgia political circles. but you were on msnbc earlier this week with my colleague and suggested that story that is mentioned in "politico" may not be the same one as the one you reported on in "the daily beast." thereby 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 this story? >> well, i would first start by focusing back on that one woman. i say this first and foremost every time and she is 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. but, yes, the "politico" report that came out seemed to imply that this allegation had been out there and that people knew about it. "the washington post" reported actually just tonight that somebody who had been advising the walker campaign when they were vetting him earlier, that allegation never showed up. one of the -- the only on record source at "politico" article, you know, she walked it back later. she said that i now don't really think that this might be the same allegation. and 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 and about how i came into it. i have no reason to believe that it's the same. and there may well be more. >> yeah. i'll quote your source again. a very courageous woman when

reacting to the news that walker said he doesn't know her. she said, sure, i stunned, i guess it doesn't shock me that maybe there are so many of us that he truly doesn't remember. but then again, if he really forgot about it, that says something too. indeed, it does say something too. does she think that he legitimately forgot about this or this is all political expediency? >> she's, you know, she's open to the possibility that i guess he would be able to forget about something like this. which, again, as she said, really, that is another statement in and of itself really. what she did speak to a lot, you know, more about her actual knowledge of her relationship with walker is that he urged her to have this abortion. he paid her for it. and she got pregnant a second time and the second time walker said it was also not convenient for her to have the child. so she said in that second

report that walker was not responsible for the child that we didn't have. and then when we had a child, right, 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 of the choice. it's just part of what makes her who she is, she says. she says that walker was able to have a say both times as well. i also like to note that walker and his denial today seemed 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 reported very plainly exactly which child this woman is the mother of. he said, you know, he hasn't

reached out to her. why would i have to do that? it seems pretty obvious, like why you would reach out to her, right? but she still has not heard from him to the best of my knowledge much that's what she told me today. and i really can't say why. >> yeah. well, i mean, the callous disregard, i'll just say it, this woman has faced from herschel walker and to some degree his campaign, i think one of the more underdiscussed aspects of your reporting is that this woman, i'll read the quote, this woman, a registered democrat, who still communicates with walker said walker did not tell her about his plan to run for the senate before his announcement in august of 2021. since then, however, one of walker's top surrogates has asked her 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 to vouch for herschel walker's character. has she had any contact with him between august and when this story broke? do you know? and furthermore, what do you surmize from the relationship between herschel walker and his campaign in terms of transparency? >> those are great questions. the woman tells me she has not been in contact with them since that august outreach. they reached out to her, the context for the fewers out there, when the woman was contacted first and asked to vouch for walker's character, that was after we broke a story, the first story, that revealed that walker who is an outspoken critic of absentee fathers and the black community, pretty specifically, that he had a

secret son. that he did not appear active in raising. and that was this woman's son. after that story broke, a day later, i got tipped to another trial. and when that story was about to break, somewhere in there is where the campaign reached out to her and said, you know, would you like to, you know, say -- i know what they said. i won't say it here. but, you know, would you like to vouch for his character is the way that she wanted it phrased. right? so it was in response to that and she was not aware that walker had another secret child. she did not know that at the time. >> wow. >> wow. i mean, it is a story of staggering hypocrisy on every level. roger, i have many more questions to ask you. we'll leave it there for tonight. thank you for your continued reporting on this incredibly important story. roger sullenberger, thank you for your time tonight.

>> thank you so much, alex. we'll have more on the herschel walker story just ahead. today reporters finally got the chance to ask his opponent about those allegations. we'll have his response and what it says about the very, very different campaigns that are being conducted in the state of georgia. "new york times" columnist charge love joins us next. "new york times" columnist charge love joins us next.

ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. ♪ ♪ away suitcases come in many colors. so you can find your color.

colors. choices. happiness. away. ♪ ♪ shingles. some describe it as an intense burning sensation or an unbearable itch. this painful, blistering rash can disrupt your life for weeks. it could make your workday feel impossible. the virus that causes shingles is likely already inside of you. if you're 50 years or older, ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingles.

just look around... this digital age we're living in, it's pretty unbelievable.

problem is, not everyone's fully living in it. nobody should have to take a class or fill out a medical form on public wifi with a screen the size of your hand. home internet shouldn't be a luxury. everyone should have it. and now a lot more people can. so let's go. the digital age is waiting.

he doesn't tell the truth. i'm herschel walker. i approve this message. >> that was just released by herschel walker. amid allegations that the supposedly pro-life walker paid for an exgirlfriend's abortion, the republican candidate is now trying to focus the debate back on his opponent, senator warnock calling him nasty and dishonest. there is only one problem with that argument, senator warnock has not said anything about walker and latest scandal. instead, he has done basically what he's always done throughout his short political career, he's taking the high road. this is senator warnock today

when asked about questions surrounding the scandal about herschel walker. >> you heard your opponent denied the allegations against him. denied that he also had a child with a woman who is in question here. do you believe him? >> i believe that my position on this has been consistent. it has not changed. that a patient's room is too narrow for a woman and her doctor and the united states government. i believe in women. and in their right to make their own health care decisions. and i think the people of georgia need a senator that will stand for the right for women. >> i believe in women and the right to make their own health care decisions. throughout that press conference, senator warnock declined to attack his opponent for his hypocrisy on the issue of abortion and instead focused

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 is what voters come to expect from him. that is the kind of politician that senator warnock is. he spent the day fumbling in interview after interview. the here is herschel walker responding to the allegations with a conservative radio host. >> i know nothing about any woman having an abortion. and they can keep coming at me like that. and if that had happened, i would have said, you know, nothing to be shamed of there. you know, people have done that. i know nothing about. and i knew about it, i would be honest and talk about it. i know nothing about that. >> i know nothing about it. that it happened, i would have said it because there is nothing to be ashamed of. but i know nothing about it.

this is a choice before georgia voters this november. joining us now is charles lowe, msnbc political analyst. charles, thank you for joining me. >> absolutely. >> so what do you make of the study in these two campaigns? i mean, warnock is a relentlessly disciplined politician. he is a relative newcomer. what do you think of his strategy for not engaging on this? >> as you point out that, is consistent for him. i think, you know, warnock in addition to being a quality candidate has had the great fortune of having horrible opponents. and he, you know, kind of lets them, you know, collapse on to themselves. i think that is what he is hoping will happen. it's what his campaign is hoping will happen. walker, on the other hand, has a machine that is just trying to ram through one of the most horrific, unqualified, horrible candidates ever to, you know, to run for the senate. and they are coming up against

an electorate on the republican side that is thirsty for that. what happens in 2020 was earth shattering in georgia. >> yeah. >> this is not really been about warnock and walker. this is about who gets to make the choice. and republicans, white people generally speaking, in georgia had always been able to call the shots. and that election led by black voters, they changed that dynamic. and that shocked everyone. and so this is just, you know, a kind of tribal entrenchment. they don't really care very much about what walker is being accused of. they don't care how good warnock is. they care about whether or not they will be able to prove that they still get to call the shots. >> what do you -- i mean you have written about this earlier this year in september.

you wrote about the importance of 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, mr. walker, i believe you, when you say you're not that smart. you are the per son fiction 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 thoroughly qualified and utterly decent. can you explain that more fully? >> there are multiple levels of this race being played with these two candidates. donald trump went in to the convention that summer spending two years on a war against nfl players, more specifically, but all players generally speaking who were being very vocal and saying we're standing up for black lives.

he's not racist and i know racism and he's just saying respective black. that's the speech that herschel walker gave at that convention. and donald trump never forgot that. and wanted to pay him back. and so he chose, you know, he hand picked walker to run. part of that calculation was that he was the anti-colin kaepernick. but part of it is also that, you know, that there was blake guy who does has, one, he was having to defend that seat. i have blake guy who i like. >> i have my black guy. >> so i have my black guy. he thrust him into that. they didn't run a vigorous campaign against walker in the primaries, so he coasts to the victory on the shoulders of donald trump. and now they're stuck in a situation where he has the two candidates. they have to vote, you know, they're intense. they have to vote for republicans and say to themselves, even though we

support all of these voter franchise laws that are aimed very specifically at black people i'm voting for a black guy so i can't be that bad. >> it's a way to re-estabilsh their anti-racist thoughts supporting someone who is utterly unqualified for office. it is 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 brittany cooper, a professor at rutgers and tweeting on this. and she has some very strong words for herschel walker --

>> that's brittany. i will say this. you know, he is being used as a tool in that way. all those things are true and he'll do exactly what they say. >> right. >> all those things are true and he were liberal, it's a no go. if all those things -- if he is warnock and is none of those things, 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 blacks. the it's an insult to black competence what they're doing in georgia. >> the hypocrisy, i will just leave it at hypocrisy at this moment, the christianity, the absentee father, the message of of redemption, the lies. we're in one hell of a moment.

it's great to see you. thank you for your thoughts tonight, charles. we have more to come here. stay with us. t, charles we have more to come here. stay with us

we planned well for retirement, but i wish we had more cash. you think those two have any idea? that they can sell their life insurance policy for cash? so they're basically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's crazy! well, not everyone knows coventry's helped thousands of people sell their policies for cash. even term policies. i can't believe they're just sitting up there! sitting on all this cash. if you own a life insurance policy of

$100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry. even a term policy. for cash, or a combination of cash and coverage, with no future premiums. someone needs to tell them, that they're sitting on a goldmine, and you have no idea! hey, guys! you're sitting on a goldmine! come on, guys! do you hear that? i don't hear anything anymore. find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

we have breaking news. president biden made extraordinary and highly alarming comments tonight about putin's war in ukraine and the threat of nuclear war. biden said the risk of nuclear armageddon is 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 have not faced the prospect of armageddon since kennedy and the cuban missile crisis." joining us to help parse the comments and discuss where we're at is ben rhodes. ben, thank you for joining me tonight. >> thank you. first year reaction to president biden using the word armageddon and recalling 1962 and the cuban missile crisis. >> well, i think that's a shorthanded, right, armageddon is shorthanded for nuclear collaboration. the reality here is we do have a threat from putin about the use of a nuclear weapon. the distinction i draw is that was the u.s. and soviet union, two superpowers in a nuclear standoff and a nuclear exchange could have been armageddon. what we have is threat of a potential use of a tactical

nuclear weapon in ukraine that would obviously be awful escalation for the people of ukraine and a potential risk of the escalation of that conflict. but, you know, we're not quite at the level of, again, i think concern of where things got in the cuban missile crisis. i think what he is reflecting is this is the first time in a very long time, decades that, we had to take seriously the possibility that a nuclear weapon can be used. that is something that people should be taking seriously. >> i would say to that end, he said i don't think there is any such thing as the ability to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with armageddon. i mean do you agree with that? >> yeah, i think the situation -- >> go ahead. >> yeah, it's -- i mean, you can parse this. what people should keep in mind is a nuclear weapon that is of the kind that we're talking about in the cuban missile crisis is the kind of twhap destroys cities, right? strategic nuclear weapons.

a tactical nuclear weapon could be of a yield that is a fraction of the yield of the atomic bomb that we used in hiroshima. any nuclear weapon use is horrific in a catastrophe and ushering us into a new age that we don't want to be. it's horrible for anybody in that vicinity. and i think the risk of armageddon comes from whether or not that weapon is used and things escalate to the point where the united states and russia are in a conflict, right? and so i do think we have lots of steps to go here. we have seen threats from putin we have not seen in if the u.s. making reference of the fact that russia's nuclear arsenal is put on a different level. then the secondary question of what might happen after the use of nuclear weapons. so we have further to go before i think we're getting into the kinds of nuclear standoffs that we, you know, all learn about from the cuban missile crisis. but i think what the president's comments do reflect is for the

first time in a very long time we're even having this conversation. this is not a conversation that anybody wants to be having. >> indeed. and he wondered allowed at the same fund-raiser moments ago. i'm trying to figure out what is putin's off ramp? why does he find a way out? why does he find himself in a position that he does not only lose face but lose significant power within russia? that's something i think we all wondered. do you think at this point there is an off ramp for putin? do you think he's even looking for one? >> nothing putin is doing suggests that with the mobilization he's done within russia, how much he's personally invested in this war. i think the reality of it is there is no face saving path out for putin. he's already failed. he failed to conquer ukraine and kyiv. he doesn't even control the territory that he announced before the russian people in the world he was annexing.

you want the use of nuclear weapons but a face saving situation for putin might not be possible right now. and that's a circumstance where he you don't know whether putin is cornered he decides to escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. we don't know. someone has to follow that order inside of russia. there is a lot of dangers for him taking that step. china does not want to see this happen. no country in the world wants to see the taboo broken. so putin has a lot of risks, too, 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, putin, zelenskyy. so that i think is what makes this such an uncertain situation. >> yeah. you mentioned xi ping and modi in india cooled putin's jets

marginally. do you think there are bilateral talks to make sure someone is talking to putin and trying to talk him off the ledge in terms of nuclear? >> it's a really good point. what we've seen is reports of the u.s. sending messages to rush yashgs warning them against doing this. i'm sure that is happening. i'm also sure that is what is happening is u.s. is reaching out to china and saying, look, we have not been getting along very well lately. we may even have different views about the war in ukraine and the sanctions we impose. china continued to buy russian oil probably far above what we would want in the united states. but, nobody would win from a scenario in which there is a use of nuclear weapons even a smaller tactical nuclear weapon inside of ukraine. it would usher in a new world in which the nuclear taboo is broken. it could escalate the conflict between nato and russia. china really does not want that either. and so i think the u.s. going to china, having the chinese lean on the russians together with us and other countries is part of what is happening right now. >> ben rhodes, former deputy

national security adviser for president obama president obama. thank you for rolling with me on this breaking news, ben. thanks for making time to join us. we'll be right back. making timn us we'll be right back. new astepro allergy. 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.

that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. "way too early" is coming up next. >> ahead on "way too early," president biden makes eye opening comments about the risks of a "nuclear armageddon" in response to threats from putin. plus, new reporting on what the justice department believes donald trump is still hiding and how it has divided the former president's legal team. and herschel walker offers a new denial to a report that he paid for a former girlfriend's abortion but then quickly