that is the million-dollar question with consequences as grave as anything doj has faced to date. is mishandling classified documents, lying about mishandling classified documents, and lying about the lies that he told about the mishandling of the government's most sensitive national defense information going to remain a chargeable crime for everyone if donald trump gets away with it in plain sight? sources familiar with the matter tell nbc news that the justice department suspects that donald trump still has classified documents in his possession right now. that stunning bit of news was broken by "the new york times." "the times" reporting goes on to report that a top justice department official told former president trump's lawyers in recent weeks that the department believed that he had not returned all the documents that he took when he left the white house. that is according to two people briefed on the matter. the outreach from the official j. bratt, who leads the department's counterintelligence operations is the most concrete

indication yet that investigators remain skeptical that trump has been fully cooperative in their efforts to recover documents the former president was supposed to have turned over to the national archives at the end of his term. here's how team trump responded to brat according to "the new york times" reporting. the outreach from the department prompted a rift among trump's lawyers about how to respond, one camp counseling a cooperative approach that would include bringing in an outside firm to conduct a further search for documents. and another camp advising trump to maintain a more combative posture. the more combative camp, the people briefed on the matter said, won out. to put all this in perspective. after months of pleading by the national archives, a subpoena from the department of justice back in may, a court-approved search of president trump's private golf club and residents which yielded 11,000 government documents, all in all, a process that has now gone on for more than a year and a half.

after all of that, and an unprecedented threat level against the fbi and doj, the justice department still believes that trump is holding on to more government documents, which legally do not long to him and never did. alarming suspicions by doj that trump is holding on to government records is where we start today. one of the reporters with the byline on that story is here. "new york times" washington correspondent and an msnbc national security contributor, former fbi counterintelligence agent, pete strzok is here. and harry lipman, and u.s. former deputy attorney, mike schmidt, joins us. mike, take us through the reporting first. >> i mean, you laid out the reporting. the question is that what does the justice department do now? so, the justice department believes there are more documents out there. and do they want to take the aggressive move, similar to what they did in august, and execute

another search warrant. and deal with everything that comes with that. and how are they going to approach that? you know, are they going to go to that level and have another, you know, raid, as trump describes them, and rile things back up all over again. as we point out in the story, there's another option for the justice department. at least two other options. one is, they could try subpoenaing the documents again, but we know that subpoenas in this investigation have not worked that effectively. the attestation coming in response to the subpoena that was misleading to the justice department earlier. or what they could do, possibly, what we laid out earlier in the story, is they could try through the ongoing litigation that is happening between donald trump and the justice department before judge canon, trying to say, look, in lieu of a search warrant, judge, and maybe go under seal and do this, say, look, in lieu of a search warrant, we want donald trump to answer, on the record, under oath, in court, in some sort of

filing, whether he still has documents. and that would be far less invasive than a search warrant. it wouldn't draw the justice department into things in a way that the search in august did. and potentially, it could get an answer, or it could get a production of the documents that they're looking for. but that's where the justice department finds itself, at least that's where we know. >> mike schmidt, what does the justice department believe remains in trump's possession? and where do they think it is? are they just looking at mar-a-lago or are they also interested in his other properties? >> well, we don't know what they don't know or what they're looking for. but what we do know is that when the search was conducted at mar-a-lago, they obviously found hundreds of pages of those classified documents, but they also found the empty folders. it was the empty folders that had the markings that were folders that were for classified materials, but were empty. and there were many of those. there were, i believe, if i recall correctly, at least more

than a dozen of them. so that raised the question, and this came out in a filing some weeks ago, what was the deal with those folders? why were the folders empty? were the folders empty because those documents were already back in the government's possession? there's probably a way for the justice department to figure out through the national archives whether the empty folder documents actually made it back to the government. or does the empty folders mean that those are the documents that are still missing and that justice department is looking for. >> pete strzok, what does the fbi counterintelligence department want to do, in your estimation, as a former member of it? >> nicole, that's a great question. i think they've got two broad things that they're trying to accomplish right now. the first is to get their hands on every last bit of certainly classified information that donald trump took with him illegally out of the white house. but there are other classified government documents to get those as well. the primary goal is to find all

the classified information. my opinion based on what we've seen is i really believe that it's likely that there's material, either at bedminster and/or trump tower in new york and/or some other location outside of mar-a-lago that trump still has classified information. the second thing, of course, that they're doing is building all the sort of conduct that isn't specifically related to the mishandling of classified information, but certainly goes to these additional criminal violations that were enumerated in the search warrant. specifically, obstruction. as you pointed out, we're going on a year and a half since the archives first asked them to turn over material through this long and tortured process of please, no, really, please, no, i really, really mean it, now here's a subpoena. now please again. now, here's a search warrant. and we're still at the point where the department of justice believes that all the material isn't back. all of that speaks to a pattern of misconduct that very much looks like obstruction, and very much goes to the heart of the elements of the crime of

obstruction, so those two sort of paths are going on at the same time. and we in the fbi, a year and a half later after hearing that this material is missing, having that uneasy feeling that we didn't have it all back in our possession, i can't tell you how unsettling that is, thinking about that as a formerly investigator, what that risk is still out there today. >> mike, pete is talking about what sounds like a pro/con analysis of the risks of seeking out another court-approved search. do you really think there's hand wringing about seeking out another court-approved warrant to retrieve classified material. do you think that trump's intimidation tactics and disinformation on conservative media have spooked the fbi and justice department to the degree that they wouldn't do what they did the first time? >> i think you have to look at that from both the perspective of trump and his team and the perspective of the u.s. government. i think it's clear that trump

and his attorneys, trump has decided that for him, the political benefit of maintaining the sort of combative stance of pushing back against any sort of cooperation, his judgment that whatever criminal risk is out there is outweighed by the political gain that he stands to benefit from by fighting. from the government's perspective, i think there are a lot of things at play here. we don't know what we don't know. we don't know, for instance, that while there might be a strong suspicion that material is still classified material, it's still out there. the government may not have enough information to get to the level of probable cause to say, we believe that this material is at this place now and that's of course, what you need to do to get a search warrant. the government may strongly suspect, may even know that there's material that hasn't been returned, but if they can't get to the level of a search warrant, they have to look at all of those other potential mechanisms and means that mike talked about. i think there's a strong likelihood that we may see another subpoena. i do very much in the absence of

a subpoena suspect that the government will try to get some sort of filing on the record, in court, because one thing, trump will huff and puff, but at the end of the day, he's very savvy about not putting down in a file document something where he is going to perjure himself. i do suspect that the government is looking at it. the fact of the matter is, does trump sort of bluster, move the needle with doj and his actions? that's hard to say. i think it's much more likely that the doj is very conscience of the fact that this is a former president that we have never as a nation faced this sort of scenario. and that they want to be very careful and diligent to make sure that they have a rock-solid case in every single step that they take. >> harry litman, in your view, what are the policy imperatives in terms of how you hold accountable and charge the crime of mishandling of national defense information? >> so from a policy level, it's the same exigen scene as we had

on august 8th. they first and foremost have to get these documents back. and there's reason to think that east very last residue might be the most sort of dangerous of all. whatever might have been in those folders. that's on the counterintelligence side. and on the criminal investigation side, i think it's a matter of obstruction and that they are -- it goes very strongly to continued obstruction on trump's party, because he knows there's an investigation and he's nevertheless decided to be obstructionist about it. it's interesting that the one sort of respected lawyer that he had hired and paid $3 million to was the one who was defeated in this internal debate. but i think that pete has made a very important point. i agree hand-wringing at all, but i think that they haven't gotten to the point of probable cause for where the other documents are. and as to the other point that mike raised, i think that they have to conclude that that's

really leading with their chin, because that's something that can and can slap down and say, this was not part of my original order to dearie to have the president come in and have to make some attestation, and that could be a whole new brouhaha. i think they're doing all they can and their exigency is as strong as it initially was, but they have legal handicaps that they didn't have on august 8th. >> harry litman, if you take a step back and offer an analysis of the doj, saying in a hundred years, people look back and they study two cases, snowden and trump, what are to you the things that must remain consistent in the united states government's handling of classified documents? >> well, i mean, it has to be that secrets, sources, methods, identities, are something that the government protects in every way possible. that's a dual kind of imperative, both on the criminal

side and the national intelligence side. so, you know, it's always perilous to try to psychoanalyze trump, but doing this, this lathe round of, you know, sort of pointing his thumb at the department, as you've said, it's maybe the sixth, the seventh, the eighth, that has to be an invitation to indict him. it's not a matter of spite, it's a matter of deterrence and respect for the rule of law. so when he is so brazenly saying, fighting them on the retention of classified documents, it is really upping the ante. so the short answer to your question is, it will depend what they eventually do, but if they, in fact, do not indict him with this record, it's going to look as if they were, you know, paper tigers on this most important national imperatives. >> let me add to our coverage. carol leonnig, "washington post" national investigative reporter, also an msnbc contributor.

carol has been all over this story. from the hour that it broke. and carol, we're talking about mike's new reporting about the belief by the fbi, counterintelligence unit, that classified and government documents remain in the president's possession, perhaps at mar-a-lago, perhaps at other properties. from your deep dive into how trump rolls, for both of your books, i wonder -- i mean, to me, having covered him -- of course he does! you know, every lawyer that we've learned about has been asked to lie for trump, either did lie for trump or has been asked to lie for trump and that was sort of a break point in either their representation of or how far they were willing to go for him. but what do you make of the fact that we still haven't -- even though it's still stalled and it's wrapped up in dearie's process, we don't even know that it's all been captured to fight about yet. >> it's so important, nicole.

i think this reporting is really topnotch. the clear element of it is the reporting that the department of justice has told trump's lawyers, in the recent days and weeks, that they suspect that there's more material to still recover. now, we've been, all of us, all of us competitors in this field have been hearing from sources that doj suspected that there could be more. suspected that there could be other places. remember, shockingly, the trump legal team asserts in a written attestation in june, look, there's no more classified records here. we've done a search. it took the fbi eight hours in one location to find 100 more pieces of classified documentation. so where did they not search?

did they not have probable cause to look at bedminster? did they not have probable cause to look under a sofa in suite number 273. the options and considerations -- forgive me, considerations is kind of endless. i think what's really important about this reporting is it makes clear that the doj has communicated that to team trump. it has always been a factor that the justice department had no faith in the claims of donald trump, including tweet in the early part of this year, hey, i declassified everything. hey, i gave it all back. hey, i have no classified material. all of those things have been proven repeatedly false. but to know that they warned team trump is -- >> it also seems like another brick in the wall. if we know there's more stuff, we know that christina rob and

alex canon and every other yahoo who you've reported has a lawyer of their own now has lied to them. i think if there were, indeed, documents that are out there, that they're able to go and find, that this would contribute to this notion that they were obstructing the investigation. it would just be more strong evidence that the government could use. and it would actually put even more pressure on the justice department to do something, because basically, what would be coming out is that not only did donald trump's lawyer mislead the justice department about whether these materials existed, but even after a search was done and it was national news that the government had taken the classified stuff from donald trump's house, he continued to hold on to materials. he continued to do that even after all of this had played out. and that would be even more evidence that the government

could use, and put more pressure on the justice department, where people would say, how are you not going to charge this case? how are you not going to do anything? as pete was talking, i was thinking, the justice department is also in a dicey spot here. they need to know that the documents exist at a place if they're going to search it. this is why i think it's probably true. if they were to go and search the location and come up empty-handed, that is not a narrative that the justice department would want out there. they went and did a search and came back with nothing. i'm sure the justice department would say, look, this is an investigation that we're following the facts. it's all about the facts, if we have to take a public hit, it is what it is. but that would be certainly something that if they were to do a search, like, imagine if they had gone to mar-a-lago and found nothing, that would be a different. they have to know, as pete was saying, they have to know before they go in the door. >> pete, at what point is trump making a mockery of the fbi and

the justice department? >> can i say five years ago? >> yeah, that's how i feel. yeah. >> it's been. there's such a pattern of him sort of thumbing his nose. it's not just the fbi, you think about the new york state attorney general, think about what's going on in georgia, just time and time and time again, trump's m.o. is to go out, look at the justice department and say, i am going to work the reps in a court of public opinion to try to persuade you or force you not to do something, to embarrass you to not do something, to sort of do anything i can to slow and delay the process of you doing something. this is just the way that he behaves. but at some point, i truly believe that this is going to catch up with him. there's too many engaged acts that he's engaged in that he has criminal exposure that i can't think -- d.o.j. is not going to make calls to his attorneys saying, we think you haven't returned this other material,

unless they're really certain that they have that somewhere. we don't know what's going on behind the scenes. we do know that doj, by all press accounting, was very actively -- the fbi was very actively investigating. that could be interviewing staff at mar-a-lago, but it could also be interviewing people who used to work at the situationroom, at the white house communications office, in the office of the presidency. all the people who brought in -- the military attaches who the folder says, return to the military attache, well, presumably the fbi is going out and interviewing those military attachs to figure out what was supposed to be returned, what the common practices were, building this body of evidence, that i really think has led to doj to solid information that they don't have everything back. but i agree with mike and the point i made earlier, knowing that you don't have some material is very different than going from a judge where you have to have probable cause that there are fruits or instrumentals of a crime, evidence of a crime at the place to be searched.

and it has to be current. it can't be, i think it was there a year ago, it has to be there right now. that's a pretty high standard and i can absolutely see doj being in this very uneasy position of knowing that there's material devastating to u.s. national security, but not being at the point to go and get a search warrant to recover it. >> pete, would you have had a role like what mr. brat has. and if you're on the phone with trump's lawyers, what are you doing? are you negotiating to get state secrets back? trying to do a deal like, just give it back and maybe we'll take that into consideration when they figure out whether to charge you with mishandling and obstruction? what is that conversation? is it cordial? are you like mouthing to your colleagues, like, these guys are -- i mean, what does -- what do those conversations sound like? >> i think it's got to be extraordinarily frustrating at this point. look, i worked with jay for 15 years. he's a very seasoned national security prosecutor. he worked as an ausa, both at the washington, d.c. u.s.

attorney's office, as well as at main justice, so he has been around the block. he has worked complex cases involving high-level cases, involving classified information. typically, conversations with opposing counsel are done by government attorneys, fbi agents whose supervisors might be in the room to help them or to provide data, but those conversations are usually government attorney to plaintiff's attorney. but at some point, you start running into the, again, the i can't imagine how frustrated the government is now. they have had imnewspaper rabble obstructions. they have issued one subpoena. they have actually done a search warrant, yet the investigation that the fbi is doing is coming up with evidence that they still haven't been completely forthright. that whatever they're saying, if you unpack the statement that christina bob signed, if you parse it, it is really narrow in scope. they want to say, we don't have anything, but that's not exactly

what it says. i can't imagine the level of frustration on the government's attorney side, on the government investigator's side, as they face yet more of this behavior, and not just continued behavior, but as harry said, trump kind of thumbing his nose at the process. just utter disrespect and contempt for the rule of law. >> so why not harry litman, charge the obstruction case today? >> that's an issue. and the complication here has always been that we're going on two sides. jay brad, who communicated with them is really the counterintelligence, we need the intelligence back first and foremost. they may be reaching that decision now. to answer your question, how was that communication? chilly is what i would say, straightforward, and i've heard it aptly described as a kind of soft target letter. the conduct he's doing is absolutely any part of

obstruction charge, and that would be clearly the leading charge here. there's an investigation, they know it, and they're concealing. so this is -- this is brat saying, you know, let's be clear here, you're making -- you're really adding to the case against you. and i think otherwise, pete is dead on. they just don't have the wherewithal legally to get the materials. now, this is an unprecedented situation, where somebody would continually bob and weave and not return these incredibly dangerous radioactive documents to the u.s. government who alone has the right to have them. >> we have to sneak in a quick break, but i want to dive into this with you, carol. what is it? that is it that he has asked so many lawyers to lie about giving back? what could it be? thank you, mike schmidt. no one else is going anywhere.

when we come back, we'll put that question to carol. and talk about what comes next for doj on all of these legal fronts. there are now multiple jurisdictions. how they go forward with all of this mayhem from trump's legal team, which is their strategy. plus, the election denier on the ballot, trying to backpedal on the big lie that may have helped him win in the primary, looking now to soften some of his extremism edges, as he struggles in the polls. we'll talk about the mark kelly/blake master race with every senate race on the line in a must-win this november. later in the show, the government presenting more damning evidence from far-right militia leaders stewart rhodes and his push for what he called a bloody civil war. all of those stories and more when "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. a quick break. don't go anywhere.

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.

it only takes a second for an everyday item to become dangerous. tide pods child-guard pack helps keep your laundry pacs in a safe place and your child safer. to close, twist until it clicks. tide pods child-guard packaging. 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 talk to anyone in san franciscog and they'll tell you now is not the time to make our city even more expensive by raising taxes. san francisco has one of the largest city budgets in america. yet when it comes to homelessness and public safety, we're not getting results. what we really need are better policies,

more accountability, and safer neighborhoods. vote no on propositions m and o. the last thing we need are higher taxes, especially right now. now is not the time to raise taxes in san francisco. vote no on m and o.

we are back with pete, harry, and carol. carol, i was thinking through the reporting in your second book, with your colleague, phil rucker, and trump's fixations were clear by the time that book's reported out. and his obsessions with our allies, the leaders he didn't like, their fixations and the desire to manifest the powers of the world's autocrats. i mean, what are your sort of, you know, theories on what might be so precious to him that he's had several lawyers lie about returning at this point? >> you know, i like one line that harry has used a couple of times before, which is, it's a dangerous place to start

speculating or crawling into donald trump's mind. but i'll tell you one thing that phil and i learned in the course of our reporting, that i think can't be said often enough. and that is, donald trump is a game day player. every day, he's got a new strategy about how he's going to win the day or he's going to win that argument. and that doesn't always make for the best legal strategy, because you can't keep changing your account of why "x" and "y" equals "d." you can't keep changing the rules of why you decided to keep records that were classified, some of them top secret, and so top secret, that only the president or cabinet members see them and authorized others see them. the problem with donald trump's strategy over and over again has been, in this instance, when he is not running the department of justice, is that he's got a couple of different varieties of explanations and they are not consistent. i think that ultimately, part of

what he keeps saying is, i didn't do anything wrong here. i'm not going to get in trouble. but as i say, those are inconsistent stories. i declassified everything, i declassified everything when i thought about it, i didn't have to do a process. the records as he said to some of his aids, the records, they're mine. i don't think -- and then that's an important second feature of this, nicole. the former president donald trump still has hail to the chief played for him at night at mar-a-lago when he goes to bed. >> that's creepy. >> he still is a person who has his correspondents refer to himself as president donald trump. not -- former presidents don't do that. but this person believes in many ways that he still has all the authority of president. and when he says these records are mine, to some of his aides and lawyers, what he meant was, why do i have to give them back? he believes this fight is a

silly one. so unfortunately, that's not how the law works when it comes to classified records. i think that some of the things that are really important to donald trump in addition to these are mine, i'm a president, i have special authority, other things are like, he likes gossip. he likes dirt. he liked to have his hands on pieces of history that other people don't know anything about. and remind them about how central his -- i find it really interesting that he kept a folder that was about macron, someone that he did not have a good relationship with, and information that was sort of personal. why did he want that? but it does fit the pattern of donald trump wanting to have special insight and information that other people don't have. particularly about things that

he would use. >> and i guess a more crass way to describe it, harry, is dirt. you know, he wanted dirt on the biden family from president zelenskyy as they faced a threat of war from vladimir putin. we know that there's signal intelligence. it was in the search warrant. we know there's human intelligence. he didn't just keep the state of the protocol office's list of their favorite ice cream flavors. he's got state credits the likes of which never probably should have been out of the sit room or the oval office. and when i ask about what the equities are, when we look back, is signal intelligence worth protecting no matter who stole it and who lied about stealing it? is human intelligence still important enough to the united states government and our allies that share theirs with us that it's worth protecting no matter who stole it?

what do you think? >> the answer is of course. and i do think, carol makes a very trenchant point. i don't think trump has that versatile or that long a playbook and i think his moves were kind of forged in his days as a real estate guy. dirt was kind of coin of the realm in new york and it gets him kind of excited to have and he goes about in the same way. and similarly, he doesn't distinguish between any kind of different situation once he's actually in the grips of the law, potentially. and that, i think, is what, you know, at its base kind of drives him. he's not all that imaginative and he goes through moves that we know. but here, they're disastrous. and not just for him legally, there is a doomsday scenario here, where the remaining documents were somehow shared with other people and that would hugely increase both the danger to the country and his own

penalties, and that's, i think, something that really keeps the j. brats of the world awake at night. but the short answer to your hundred-year question, it has to be. you can't possibly defend yourself as a nation in the modern world with the sophisticated adversaries we have if you don't treat them like the crown jewel. >> so, pete, if carol's theory is right, the only reason to take personal information -- or information that's personal in nature from one of our treasured methods about a potential ally is to hold yourself up as powerful or illustrate supremacy by having it, which means that by nature, the only reason he took it and keeps it is to share it. what sort of urgency does that inject into the case? >> well, nicole, i think there's a huge sense of urgency, not only in terms of what he had and what he might have done with it, but as we've been talking about what he still may have now.

i agree with carol. i think that absolutely, there is an element of fascination. i think there's an element of sort of tawdry, salacious interest in some of the material. and i certainly wouldn't put it past trump to maintain this stuff for business purposes. you know, you can combine things that are salacious and embarrassing to get your way in the business aspect, but i think that we can't take away his motivations of the grift, of making money, from part of the reason why he might want to hang on to some of this material. but i certainly think that when you look at any of his interactions, first and foremost, there's his witting interaction. who he might have voluntarily shared it with on a phone call, but as a counterintelligence investigator isn't just worried about what trump does with the information. they're worried about all the other people in the orbit and around this information. so every housekeeper, every cook, every guest, every caterer at mar-a-lago, at bedminster, at

trump tower that might get in there, specifically thinking about the fact that the russians and the chinese intelligence services, amongst many others, are specifically trying to get into that environment exactly to look for that sort of information. so you can't just thinking about this in terms of, well, what did trump do? you have to think about, what does a determined adversary, like the russian intelligence was, like the chinese intelligence service do to try to get access to that? and that's why most of the counterintelligence division at the fbi has got to be worried as all get out about the potential harm and damage to national security of this potentially unsecured classified information floating around out there in the wild somewhere. >> or like any son in business with the saudis on the golf front, any son-in-law in business with the middle east. any daughter -- i mean, like, the list is endless. it doesn't have to even be anyone that could -- it is --

it's a nightmare scenario. pete strzok, harry litman, carol leonnig, three of the best of the best, thank you so much for starting us off today. up next, arizona, one of the key states in the fight for control of the u.s. senate is also home to audit after audit after fraudit after fraudit in the 2020 presidential election. no fraud was ever found. how the now debunked big lie is playing in the final days of the senate race today. we'll show to it you next. senate race today. we'll owsh to it you next. i was always the competitive one in our family... 'til my sister signed up for united healthcare medicare advantage. ♪wow, uh-huh♪ now she's got a whole team to help her get the most out of her plan. ♪wow, uh-huh♪ with coverage that's better than ever for dental... ...vision... ...prescription drugs and more. advantage: me! can't wait 'til i turn 65! aarp medicare advantage plans, only from unitedhealthcare. take advantage now at uhc.com/medicare to be clear, we have never been accused

of being flashy, sexy or lit. may i? we're definitely not lit. i mean seriously, we named ourselves booking.com which is kind of lit if we are talking... literal... ha ha. it's why we're planet earth's number one site for booking accommodation. we love booking stuff! and we're just here to help you make the best of your vacation. ow... hi... booking.com booking.yeah ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ what will you do? will you make something better? create something new? our dell technologies advisors can provide you with the tools and expertise you need to bring out the innovator in you.

once upon a time, at the magical everly estate, landscaper larry and his trusty crew... were delayed when the new kid totaled his truck. timber... fortunately, they were covered by progressive, so it was a happy ending... for almost everyone. ♪ hit it!♪ ♪it takes two to make a thing go right♪ ♪it takes two to make it outta sight♪ ♪one, two, get loose now! it takes two to make a-♪ get double rewards points this fall. book now at bestwestern.com.

i think trump won in 2020. maybe you disagree, but you've got to admit, this election was really messed up. trump wins big in a fair fight. i'm blake masters. i'm running for the u.s. senate in arizona and i approve this message because election integrity is the most important issue. >> so, here comes the plot twist. you know who knows that was absolute -- bill barr's favorite word -- bill bleep. blake masters! that's why he put on a show last night and had a dramatic reversal on those very words. the arizona republican senate nominee reportedly, baselessly, in the ad, denied the results of the 2020 election. it went on in his campaign ads. he repeated those lies over and over again at campaign rallies with the ex-president, all year. masters' echoing of the big lie

was the main reason the ex-president endorsed him. and aggressively. and now masters pulled ahead in the crowded gop primary earlier this year and won. but in a debate last night, part of the general election against democratic senator mark kelly, whom he's consistently lagged behind in the polls and in fund-raising, masters does a 180, admitted the whole thing was a lie. he backtracked and who he believes is the american president and why there is no doubt about it in his mind. watch. >> joe biden's absolutely the president. he's dually sworn and certified, he's the legitimate president, he's in the white house. >> was that election stolen? was it rigged in any way, shape, or form? enough to keep donald trump out of the white house? not vote counting, not election results? >> yeah, i haven't seen evidence of that. >> because there isn't any. joining our coverage, the reverend al sharpton, host of msnbc's politics nation and the president of the national action

network, and tim miller, hot off the trail in arizona is with us. he's a writer at large for the bulwark, also an msnbc political analyst, guest hosting "the circus" this week. tim miller, take me inside the final weeks and days of the arizona senate race. >> yeah, look, we were at an event for the circus that was a masters event with ted cruz and kari lake, it's interesting what's happening here. these guys are all putting on a feint, it's all fake, up on stage when they're giving speeches, they're no longer talking about the big lie, because they know that it's not popular among the swing voters that these candidates need if they're going to win in november. even though it was what got them nominated in the first place. and yet in the crowd, when you talk to people in the crowd, i couldn't find a single person in the crowd who thought that the 2020 election was legitimate. i asked everybody that came through. and that's because they've been lied to by trump, by masters, by lake, by ted cruz, by all of these folks. and yet now they're trying to

backpedal and backtrack in the final days, because what was politically convenient, advancing this lie that was the reason why our capitol was stormed, was the reason why there were deaths at the capitol and we had our first non-peaceful transfer of power since the civil war, they no longer -- that's no longer convenient for them politically. but they won't really -- they're not apologizing. like, that's just not saying, oh, i've received new information. oh, there have been four audits in arizona so i want everyone here in the audience to know that the election was legitimate and i have other criticisms with joe biden. that's not what they're doing. they're trying to play this little game where they can advance this very dangerous lie when it's convenient and backpedal when it's not. >> rev, what's really important about this story isn't masters, you know, last-minute sort of swing for the middle. it's how lethal politically the insurrection and the supreme

court are to republicans and how do you make sure that every democrat talks about that every minute of every day for the next five weeks? >> that is the real challenge that democrats need to make it very clear the danger we're in, when you have people that are totally opportunistic. they believe in nothing and will say and do anything to win. and where that puts this country in terms of danger and the people in the country has got to be the message. i mean, the one thing that donald trump has done is make rank opportunism become the order of the day in american politics. you say whatever you need to say, because you don't believe in anything. so, if you're herschel walker that just walks through scandals like it's cotton candy, or whether it's this arizona candidate that just has gone and done an 180-degree turn, trump has told american politicians

that are following his lead, yeah, just do whatever you've got to do and don't admit to no wrong, don't repent, don't redo, just straight ahead and win and you can fake your way in. and that is dangerous. it is absolutely dangerous to the people of this country. >> and this is the message that the democratic candidate in this race, senator mark kelly is trying to drive home in these final weeks. let me show you some of his sound from the debate last night, tim. >> you think you know better than women and doctors about abortion, you even think you know better than seniors about social security, and you think you know better than veterans about how to win a war. folks, we all know guys like this. and we can't be letting them make decisions about us because it's just dangerous. >> tim, how prevalent is this message that the republicans are dangerous out on the campaign trail? >> very, in the democratic ads. and this is one thing that

democrats have going for them right now. masters got pushed through in the primary thanks to the largess of peter thiel and donald trump's endorsement alone and hasn't had enough money to combat this on the air. that's one of the best things that the democrats have going for them. so the republican dangers, i think that ties together the abortion issue with the insurrection issue and in blake masters' case, you heard kelly mention, he's been pretty soft, really, on the ukraine war, you know, which ties into the national security element of this. i don't think there's good reason to be certain that blake matters would support continuing to fund that. and he's dismissed it, kind of like j.d. vance. i think that's prevalent. and these guys are making it easy for him. going back to that event that i was talking about, while they aren't talking about the insurrection in the crowd, one man shouted out from the crowd, 2,000 mules, which is thdy conspiracy theory about the election.

and everyone is cheering for it. kari lake is saying, let's get that old bat mitch mcconnell out of the office. nair talking about defunding the doj. the doj is a democratic op. right? the rhetoric that the republicans are using on the campaign trail, despite the fact that they're dialing it back a little bit on january 6th, is still playing into mark kelly's message on this, for sure. >> rev, the best, most devastated and effective political attacks are the ones that are true. the ones that are so true that if you're attached to reality, you feel them in your bones. and the truth is, on national security, on domestic security, on domestic terrorism, on abortion, republicans are the most dangerous force the world over. >> and not only are they the most dangerous force the world over, imagine if they were totally in charge of national security. and imagine they were totally in charge when you have putin making the kind of threats that he's making? and you've got people who don't

stand or believe in thinking that would be in charge of our security. that's what the democrats need to be saying. that if you have people that will do whatever it is opportune for them at that time in charge, they will sacrifice all of us if it will preserve something that will give them some instant gratification. and that's dangerous! that's a national security risk that we cannot afford to get elected this -- in the next 4 1/2 weeks. >> all right! the rev and tim are sticking around. we'll quickly turn to georgia, where democratic senator raphael warnock is trying to keep his focus on the voters there, hoping to let the abortion allegations surrounding his opponent simply speak for themselves. how that scandal is playing out in georgia is next. s playing ou in georgia is next

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.

warnock. the hypocrisy is a very strong sign of the kind of leadership that walk woehr provide if he were elected and that kemp has failed to provide to the state of georgia. o the reality is their hypocrisy is not limited to the hypocrisy of abortion. it is draconian. >> that is stacy abrams, the democratic candidate for georgii on this program yesterday on the hypocrisy and lies she and senator warnock are fighting against in that state. the republican running against reverend warnock has released a new adin trying to defend himse

and hang on to his christian base. stories of redemption after stories thatpt he paid an exgirlfriend for an abortion. a person that stand for and as a senator for will vote on a total ban on abortion in america. in the onad, walker talks about being wredeemed, how he was sad from a mental health crisis by the grace of god.e we're back with the reverend al and tim. i assume people believing about redem, already standing with him. how do you see this playing out the final weeks and days? >> i think that the misuse of redemption is that in order to seek redemption you must first repent ofmu your sins and

acknowledge them. you can't say you did anything but if you did, there is nothing wrong with that it, that's what he said. i didn't pay for an abortion. but there is no shame if i did. and i want to be redeemed for what i said i didn't do. that does not sound at all thee logically or practically. and i believe that the diehard trump people will go with them and just need him to say anything. but i think where he fails is independent voters and republicans that really believe in some of the principles of the republican party may look the other way. and i think that it is an insult to the republicans that are in georgia, that donald trump would go to the central casting and say give me a black guy, give me a football guy because there's a football authing. it doesn't matter what he believes in. it doesn't matter whether he is well prepared or not,at we're going to cast him because he's

running against an incumbent black senator who is a preacher. so we can just cast this right we can take the seat with no regard, no respect for the people in his own party there in georgia. and kemp who closed down sites, voting sites, let's not get so caught up on herschel walker that we h forget kemp is the on that disenfranchised voters four years ago. so both of them are wanted when it comes to ethics and decency inhi my opinion. >> reverend al. tim miller. thanks to both of you. you can catch tim, he is guest hosting this week's episode of theis circus on sunday at 8:00 p.m. on show time. up next for us, another day of testimony inof the seditious conspiracy trial showing just how far those right-wing militia members were willing to go for donald trump on january 6th. that story after a quick break. . that story after a qui bckreak away things. fit together with away things.

♪ ♪ that's our thing. ♪ ♪

♪ what will you do? ♪ what will you change? ♪ will you make something better? ♪ will you create something entirely new? ♪ our dell technologies advisors provide you with the tools and expertise you need to do incredible things. because we believe there's an innovator in all of us.

i recall hearing the word oath keeper and hearing the word proud boys closer to the plan of the january 6 rally when mr. giuliani arrived. >> whoa. hi again, everyone. 5:00 in new york. it was subtly, perhaps, one of the most stunning revelations from any piece of january 6th committee testimony that we heard. cassidy hutchison testifying under oath that days before the assault of the capitol, donald trump ordered her boss, the day

before, her boss, chief of staff mark meadows to call roger stone and mike flynn, two men with connections to the proud boys and oath keepers. potential line of communication from the trump white house to far right extremist groups that would be responsible for much of the brutal violence that day. this that is of profound importance and in all we learned this week in the conspiracy trial, the founders of the oath keepers to gather evidence and testimony combined to illustrate just how far that group is willing to go. they have prepared for violence it was in order to stop the peaceful transfer of power on january 6th on behalf of donald trump. well, one witness said in the aftermath of the election, "it sounded like we were going to war against the united states government." group chats read allowed in court suggested members envisioned january 6th like "1776 all over again." stewart rhodes himself insisted at the time that trump should, quote, use the insurrection act, using phrases like bloody civil

war and revolution. of chief concern, a bombshell from the courtroom yesterday. a former oath keeper testified that he claimed to have high contact inside the secret service and that rhodes might have been talking to that contact months before the january 6 attack. this trial is where we start today with our favorite reporters and friends. nbc news justice reporter ryan riley is here. also joining us, josh gershstein for "politico." they've been in the courtroom throughout the trial. and tracy walter is here, former cia officer and fbi special agent. let me start with you, ryan. take me inside the courtroom this week. >> you know, it's been really compelling testimony. we heard from it a number of oath keepers and people worried about the rhetoric that was being brought up in the lead-up to this election. you had a couple folks that fell off the oath keepers because of how extreme the rhetoric was

getting including someone from the north carolina branch who had a really big fallout with the oath keepers. and months before he was even the branch broke off from the larger organization. and then another individual from florida who testified that he was not liking the militia path that this was all going down. and sort of faded into the background of this group ahead of january 6. i think, you know, the thing that i still really want to find out about and what you sort of got to in the introduction is there is this phone call that one of the other oath keepers was he would operating with the government and pleaded got seditious conspiracy and told the court about. he said that he expected to testify and he told the court that on the night of january 6th, stewart rhodes was in a hotel room and desperately trying to get in touch with donald trump and talk to someone, some sort of trump person and implored that person to put him on the phone with trump and implored that person to tell donald trump to call upon groups like the oath

keepers to basically take over. that's what they were looking to do there. so who that person is, i think that is really important. there are a lot of candidates. there is so much overlap between a lot of these extremist groups. when you get into the mixing, especially with the individuals who are -- had access to the white house in those final days of the trump presidency when you're sort of bringing a lot of sort of cookie folks in along with rudy giuliani, you wonder who exactly that connection could be. and could it be someone in the secret service that stewart rhodes purported to be talking to a couple months earlier? there are a number of candidates on the table. we could get more answers about that as this trial rolls forward. >> josh, i'm not on the social truth or truth social. i know that the ex-president twice impeached puts out a lot of messages about the mar-a-lago search of his home. it seems like this trial may actually represent a more lethal legal threat to him.

let me ask you about the testimony that was heard this week. an agent was on the stand for a little over a half hour. talking about stewart rhodes' presence in d.c. on december 12th. how much is connecting rhodes to everything that happened between november and january part of the body of evidence and why does it matter? >> well, it seems like the prosecutors, nicole, are trying to set the back story from -- for the jury here. we had almost a week of testimony now with some breaks and there is actually been very little discussion of january 6th itself. it's mostly been, you know, what was the ideology of the oath keepers? what was the ideology of stewart rhodes? how angry were they in the wake of the 2020 election? it's clear from the text messages as well as open letters that rhodes sent that they were very, very angry and they were talking about the potential for blood to run in the streets. they were trying to make the

appeals to trump. but it's not now pretty clear it was a duel strategy. they were trying to appeal to trump. there was a message that was read in court today, a text message that rhodes sent saying we're trying behind the scenes to get information to the president about why he should invoke the insurrection act. if they think there is a good chance he wouldn't take the steps they wanted him to take, they were going to take action anyway. if won't act, we will is one of the quotes that the jury saw today. so that is sort of the backstop that i think they're trying to lay out for january 6th. and also i think to build it up a little bit. jurors are eventually going to focus on the fact that stewart rhodes himself did not go into the capitol on january 6th. they have to show he had responsibility for what took place there. >> josh, another e-mail that was read by another fbi special agent who testified was about

rhodes' efforts to train for an insurrection. time to get serious about training and force on force is the way to go. rhodes wrote that on november 25th, 2020. seems that we have enough information through investigative journalism and the various filings in other case that's were on the way through that notion that anything about january 6th was spontaneous is annihilated and the seditious conspiracy is about a premeditated plan. but, again, going back to what was in motion in november and the presence in d.c. in december and this belief that trump in the end wouldn't do what they wanted to him to do so they were going to overthrow it anyway, take me through what the portrait is that prosecution will paint over the course of this trial. >> they're trying to show that this was a group that was more than willing to use violence

either way from the very beginning. i think the problem the prosecution faces in the trial is, you know, if some jurors believe that trump might have invoked the insurrection act, maybe they'll think the participants were just waiting for that and, therefore, they thought their actions would be legal. it is sort of a question of how intent were people on crossing the legal line if they thought it was necessary? and the defense strategy seems to be to suggest that the folks were either doing some kind of personal security details or looking to defend people against attacks from these groups. we keep hear that being brought up over and over again or perhaps that they were, you know, sort of cause players. there is all this military lingo they use a lot of the time and the communications they don't need to be communicating in code. and so i think that there is going to be some self mockery to try to defeat the prosecution case here.

the prosecution has to show that these people were in fact serious and were committed to taking the actions that they ended up taking on january 6th or, believe it or not, something even worse. the there is a lot of discussion about the huge cache of weapons that they had in arlington, virginia, in the so-called quick reaction force and what was the purpose of that? how were they planning to use those weapons? was there a willingness to use them even if trump hadn't taken steps that in their view might have made that legal? >> tracy, trump is tied to all of their plans and everything they do hinges around this access, whether or whether or not he doesn't invoke the insurrection act. this was introduced in this evidence from rhodes, we're going have a fight that can't ab voided. it's better to have a fight now while trump is commander in chief than to wait until he's gone. that is december 12th, 2020. trump has one last chance to act. he must use the insurrection act

unless we fight a bloody revolution. this is also interesting. this rhodes in his own words from that december 12th day. >> show the world who the traders are and then use the insurrection act to drop the hammer on them. and all of those veterans who swore that oath, until you're age 65, you can be called up as the militia to support and defend the constitution. he needs to know from you that you are with him, that he does not do it now while he is commander in chief, we're going have to do it ourselves later in a much more desperate, much more bloody war. let's get it on now while he is still the commander in chief! >> it's chilling to hear that in light of the fact that three weeks and six days later, january 6th happened. >> yes. it is extremely chilling. i think one of the other things is the verbage that he is using.

several things he is really invoking the mult and he's invoking veterans. you know, we have to remember that the oath keepers, two-thirds are former military or former lawsuit and about 10% of them are active duty military or active law enforcement. i find that to be deeply concerning. their name itself is really a play off of the oath that former law enforcement officers like myself took to the government, to really oh, bay the president an enforce the laws of the united states. he's really playing on that and galvanize the people to formulate the tactical teams to go out and to commit the acts. we have to remember this say word that isn't being used a lot. and i'm a bit frustrated by it. the fact of the matter is groups like the oath keepers, groups like the proud boys, folks like stewart rhodes, they are domestic terrorists. and we're scared to use that word. the but that is really what is going on here.

we don't have a federal charging statute for insighting terrorism which makes it difficult to moderate these. >> ted cruz of all people described it as domestic terrorism. why do you think we struggle with using the right words? >> i think that's an excellent point. it should be something that is sort of bipartisan. i think the problem is terrorism has become politicized. i worked counter-terrorism at the fbi. i worked counter-terrorism at the cia. but i worked it during a time when we sort of had across the board political approval and political support. i he think it's really difficult sometimes to call something a terrorist that looks just like you. i'll be frank about that.

i think that's where we struggle with that sometimes. we don't want to recognize that there are folks that our neighbors and people that we see and know that could be part of the groups. >> the other thing, tracy, i'm glad you raise this. the other thing is i think that politicians in both parties including the democratic party have a hard time describing trump supporters as domestic terrorists. it is true. ted cruz told us it is true. it is still something that everyone sort of chokes on before they can get it out of their mouths. >> yeah. i completely agree with you. i don't think every person that supports donald trump is a domestic terrorist. i never thought. that again, nobody wants to be labelled with that and no one wants to think that their cause is wrong. and that their cause is takeristic. we align that with international terrorists, like al qaeda.

and that is really difficult for folks to wrap their brain around. >> all the domestic terrorists involved in the attack of january 6th were trump supporters. none of them were there having -- >> you're right. >> they were not there attending biden-harris rallies. i want to come back to the trial. i want to show all of you something that nick quested testified to before the january 6th hearing. the intersection here is that we don't have access to the evidence doj has developed. but in a parallel track, congress has been investigating january 6th. we've been exposed to some of the things that may be on the table. the let me show you his description having been imbedded with the proud boys. >> i don't tell that crowd turn from protesters to rioters. i was surprised by the size of the group and the anger and the profanity. and for anyone who didn't understand how violent that event was, i saw it. i documented it. and i experienced it. i had incredibly aggressive

chanting. i shared -- subsequently shared that footage with the authorities. >> what is the strategy? the evidence presented so far as we've been discussing backs up to november. it's the planning. it's the preparations, the willingness to use violence and then what he testified, to the actual violence that ensues that day. what in your view will be sort of the -- how will the pie be made up in terms of the case that the prosecution makes? >> yeah. you know, i think that the word, the challenge in this case probably comes in is whether you get jury -- jurors to think because there wasn't necessarily silent acts from these individual oath keepers, i should say one of them shoved an officer. there is a couple other moments where there is, you know, physical contact between officers. the but there is not, you know, this sort of barbaric violence that we saw necessarily on the western front in a lot of these oath keeper cases. they're mostly focused on the east front which is chaotic but

relatively speaking calm compared to what is happening on the west front where officers are being dragged down the stairs by the back of their neck. you didn't have that level of violence on the east side. and i think what essentially the defense is going to do is say, like, look, they were assisting law enforcement officers. i wrote a story earlier this week about this one instance that lawyers pointed to. there is an individual who was a former retired law enforcement officer from new york who is associated with the only keepers. he was a member. he signed up online. he was not in communication with them that day. i spoke with him and he was not in communication with the individuals who were charged in connection with the criminal conspiracy. he assisted law enforcement that day. that's something that i think they're going to try to take advantage of. the oath keepers as we mentioned are made up of former members of law enforcement, former members of the military and have done some -- have aided citizens in some other scenarios. there's mention of hurricane

relief, for example in the trial this week. in other scenarios, they have been trying to come to the aid of law enforcement. apparently we're in communication with the secret service. escorting folks in and out of those things. it really is like a little bit jarring i think to see some of what the oath keepers, membersst oath keepers, some of them believe the organization is about and then what stewart rhodes the direction of stewart rhodes and this group allegedly took which is overthrowing the u.s. government. you certainly have language from individual defendant who's are charged in this case. that makes it look as though they're part of the broader mission to attack the u.s. capital. you hear jet watkins celebrating going inside. the violence from the proud boys is a lot more extreme, i think, than you see from the oath keepers that have been charged in connection with this case.

this is a slow boil case. when do you have three cooperating defendants, who say that this was a act of seditious that does improve your odds at a jury trial. doj is running and batting 1,000 at jury trials so far. so this could be their biggest challenge yet to date. >> i think people understand the difference between noble pursuit like hurricane assistance and illegal one like a militia. i want to read from your reporting. i think there is history in it mob prosecutions and otherwise that it is the insiders who are usually most persuasive with a jury. here's what an oath keeper's insider testified to, the whole thing was so threatening. it was scary. they were propose to be brought to the table. we're going to take over the white house. if you bring guns, it's okay.

their butt. it isn't what i joined. he said he repeatedly tried in the days that followed to relay the recording, recorded a call from the oath keepers to the fbi. d.c. attorney general's office and the u.s. capitol police , did anyone call you back? yeah, after it all happened he replied. are these the kinds of witnesses, former oath keepers that we should expect to hear from the trial that tried to sound sound the alarm ahead of time? >> yeah. we heard several of them, i don't know that it's fair to say they tried to sound the alarm. but at least one did there and couple backed away from the group. they were concerned about what is going on. it is a double-edged sword. if people get up on the stand and they we were just helping women and children and hurricane victims and then suddenly it took this turn.

it could possibly, the defense in that, you know, some defendants, maybe not stewart rhodes himself may be say that's why i got involved too and maybe something went wrong on january 6th. they were not party to this. i think that is the defense we're going to see play out in the prosecution. what you see in the oath keeper's public appearances is not on the level people like stewart rhodes are saying we're here to protect folks but behind the scenes he is saying let's dress up like single parents with baby carriage and have a bunch of weapons in the baby carriage when they come after us. some were spoiling for a fight even back in those events in september. >> we are so grateful that you're both in the courtroom for this. we'll continue to monitor here. ryan riley, josh, thank you so much. tracy walter, thank you for your contributions. thank you all starting us off this hour.

when we come back, threats at home to threats abroad. joe biden with his starkest warning yet about russia and what putin may do in the face of the military defeats in ukraine. plus, with a month to go ahead of the midterm elections, democrats are forcing republicans into a tough choice. whether or not to address their party's draconian and unpopular stance on banning abortion. for some republicans, it is a test they're failing every day. we'll continue after the break. y we'll continue after the break i tried everything to remove fabric odors, 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.

about two years ago i realized that jade was overweight. i wish i would have introduced the fresh food a lot sooner. after farmer's dog she's a much healthier weight. she's a lot more active. and she's able to join us on our adventures. get started at longlivedogs.com

just look around... and s this digital age us o 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.

there's a reason comcast business powers more businesses than any other provider. actually, there's a few... comcast business offers the fastest, reliable network... the protection of security edge... and the most reliable 5g network. want me to keep going? i can... whether your business is starting or growing, you need comcast business. technology solutions that put you ahead get started with fast speeds and advanced security together for $69.99 a month for 12 months. plus find out how to get up to a $650 prepaid card with a qualifying bundle.

joe biden issued his gravest warning yet. it is the highest it's been in 60 years. they said last night. it must be used. he said we've got a guy i know fairly well, he's not joking about the tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons. his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming. the off camera comments from president biden are frank assessment he has offered since the war began in february. they go further than any members have gotten talking about the threat of weapons being made by putin. that is the look of the worries and the united states. but the world.

joining us are two experts. and andrew mcfall. you know in the word for president who had a pension for saying more blunt things than when he was a podium and sometimes it's interesting to see the delta between the interagency approved messages for global stage and what a president really says about another leader certainly one as menacing as putin, i wonder, you know, if you can take a step back and tell me if people are overreacting or what you make of this at all. >> i work for vice president biden too and most certainly he speaks lovely. on the record and off the record. he has a reputation for that.

second, i think what he said is what they have been thinking about from the very beginning of the war. we want our leaders to be worried about such things and doing everything they can to reduce the probabilities. >> colonel, take all of our viewers through your reaction and assessment of the likelihood that putin would do that. >> sure. i think this is a -- an extremely high consequence, catastrophic event. therefore, we have to take it seriously. this administration is thinking about it consistently. this administration is measured and may be reactive and slow to respond because of that nuclear

threat. but it is also a extremely low probability event. and on that basis, we have to be both ready to warn off russia, make sure they know we're serious and prepared to defend. nato and the u.s. and also to warn them against the significant change in the way we will respond to russia's nuclear weapons use in ukraine. the interests are limited. he has few relationships left with russia -- with china and india. he's going to -- he would burn those relationships. p it's already a very uncomfortable for china and india to have relations with him. he would rue unthat. then there is also the understanding of when this would be used. it's -- nuclear weapons are supposed to be used in a case of threat. that means kind of a clear and present danger. moscow is encircled.

nato is attacking. that's when you use nuclear weapons. when there are nuclear weapons flying towards russia, that's when they use them. this is not a clear and present danger. he is looking at options to preserve options and live another day. therefore, i think this is a very, very full throated bluff to try to get the west to deter. but he's not ready to do this nor are there indications and warnings that he is close to doing anything with nuclear weapons yet. >> ambassador mcfarland. i know what i know from reading the paper. but my sense is he has all these domestic pressures now. wildly unpopular semidraft. and wildly unsuccessful and humiliating war in ukraine. a massive amount of dead russian soldiers. and i want to get your thoughts on that. then i want to share with you some reporting about we don't

see a lot of this, but some dissent and strife within russia. so first on, you know, is this the moment when he's so weakened domestically that he uses a nuke? >> he's definitely weakened domestically. he is upset with how his army is performing in ukraine. he was upset six months ago and more upset today. it's not been going well for a long time. we forgot about the battle in kyiv. he lost that many, many months ago. so that's clear. second, there is more public back stabbing now going -- happening in moscow than ever before. i think it was probably happening behind closed doors. now it's out in the open. he is feeling that pressure too. but third, some people jump from that to say he's a rat in the corner, he has nowhere to go and therefore he has to use a nuclear weapon. that is the logical step, again, maybe he's not being logical. we always have to worry about

that. i don't see what would be the upside for him of using a nuclear weapon. as alex said, how many leaders around the world would support him? zero. how many ukrainians would get on television the day after a nuclear weapon was used in their country and say well because we've been tacked by this nuclear weapon, we need to capitulate. we need to surrender. zero. nobody is going to say that. how many people in putin's own inner circle would say publicly that they supported this decision? i think it would be very few if not zero. i just hope putin understands everything i just said. >> yeah. i mean, he's insulated. he also monitors both of your statements closely. i want to ask both of you about this reporting. a member voiced disagreement to the russian president in recent weeks over his handling of the war in ukraine. observation obtained by u.s. intelligence. the discontent that member of

putin's inner circle expressed to what the insider considered mismanagement of the war effort, mistakes by those executed in the military campaign, the insider's identity could not be confirmed though the name is included in the u.s. intelligence reporting. you know what the classified version of this looks like. take us through what this means and the significance. i i'm not saying you have access to this right now, but when you were in the government this is the kind of intelligence that people work these -- i didn't mean -- i misspoke. this is probably solid information coming from our intelligence community that there is at least one person who is voicing disagreement to the ambassador's point to and around and very close to vladimir putin. >> yeah. the you know what? there is this person, this is a very courageous person. this first person that actually speaks up is going to be the person that, you know, basically, he's the one that putin is going to send a message

to. the rest of the inner circle what happens if you challenge him. i don't -- it's interesting that this is coming out. i think this administration's actually been very good about keeping it secret and tight lipped. but this one is out. there is some motivation to kind of sow additional discord and fears about the inner circle being critical of putin. i think that might possibly be why we're hearing about this. in fact, there is quite a bit of rumbling now among the political leadership within the duma parliamentary body. there have been critics. i think there is starting to bubble up in a way. these are the early days nowhere near risking putin's regime. these are early days of kind of a growing discontent magnified by sanctions being harsh and getting harder as the winter gets near and military defeats.

so all this is going to come together to make putin's decisions about escalating pretty challenging without clear path to victory. >> former ambassador michael mcfall and lieutenant colonel, thank you so much for joining us to day on all this. when we come back, there is breaking news to tell you about has to do with georgia's republican senate candidate herschel walker. "the new york times" break ag story in the last few minutes that says that the woman who says walker paid for her abortion in the year 2009 also says that walker urged her to terminate a second pregnancy two years later. that brand new reporting, what it means for the senate race and the balance of power after a quick break. don't go anywhere. power after a quick break. don't go anywhere. 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. wait, i don't do tai chi. i don't do most of the things you see in medicare health insurance commercials. cut! all the ads look the same because the insurance companies all see us the same. humana is different. they get to know you and listen to what

you need. they have all-in-one humana medicare advantage plans with medical and prescription drug coverage. most plans include vision, hearing and dental for as low as a $0 monthly plan premium in many areas. humana has a large network, and they offer ppo options for even more flexibility. members saved an average of $9600 a year on prescription drugs. most plans include a yearly allowance for over-the-counter items. you can get tier 1 prescriptions with no co-pays or deductibles. call humana now to speak to a licensed sales agent. they'll treat you like a real person whether you actually go speed walking, or not. better care begins with listening. humana, a more human way to healthcare. ♪ what will you do? ♪ what will you change? ♪ will you make something better? ♪ will you create something entirely new? ♪

our dell technologies advisors provide you with the tools and expertise you need to do incredible things. because we believe there's an innovator in all of us. prop 27 sends 90% of profits to out-of-state corporations in places like new york and boston. no wonder it's so popular... out there. yeah! i can't believe those idiots are going to fall for this. 90%! hey mark, did you know california

is sending us all their money? suckers. -those idiots! [ laughter ] imagine that, a whole state made up of suckers. vote no on 27. it's a terrible deal for california. we win. you lose. breaking hypocrisy news for you in the story of republican senate candidate herschel walker paying for a girlfriend's abortion. "the new york times" is reporting that herschel walker apparently urged the same woman to have a second abortion just two years later. she allegedly is the mother of one of his children. we have not verified this reporting. "the new york times" is keeping the woman's identity a secret. "the daily beast" did the same thing shechlt insisted on remaining anonymous to protect her son. she told "the new york times" she wanted to come forward so that georgia voters knew what kind of man walker is.

saying as a father, he has done nothing. he does exactly what the courts say and that is it. he has to be held responsible. just like the rest of us. if you were going to run for office, you need to own your life. times also notes that the request for comment from walker's campaign were not returned. nbc news reached out to walker's campaign for a response as well. joining us now, michelle goodwin from university of california irvine, specializing in reproductive rights. and charlie sykes, editor at large of the bull works and msnbc contributor. the danger in this country is that women will die because we're not going to outlaw sex and sex can lead to pregnancy, rape and incest can too. and sometimes the pregnancies endanger the lives of women as young as 10. and herschel walker doesn't give a damn. but he encouraged and in conversations with a woman he was allegedly in a relationship

with had at least one abortion and sought two. and this is only one relationship. we're learning about because this woman this mother of one of his children thinks that the voters of georgia should know what kind of man he is. where are we? >> that's right. she has come forward and just one correction. we're talking about a nation, we're talking about states that are now condemning girls, not women, 9, 10 years old, to carry pregnancies to term that may threaten their lives. you know, u.s. is the most dangerous place in all of the industrialized world for a woman or a girl to be pregnant. we rank 65th in the world where in company and in lead with nations where women are still publicly stoned. that's where we are in terms of maternal safety. even more politically what this meant as we talk about on this show is that we have seen a woman in louisiana who is being forced to carry a pregnancy to term where the fetus has no

skull. the we have seen women nearly to death now before the doctors feel as if they can intervene in order to avoid criminal punishment or civil liabilities. the reason this woman came forward with something that is very sensitive and personal which should shouldn't have to do. but it is because there are now lawmakers who themselves have wanted to have their girlfriends and wives have abortions or made them have abortions and are now denying that same opportunity to other couples and people who would not want to be parents or pregnant. >> herschel walker supports a national abortion ban. after roe versus wade was overturned by the u.s. supreme court, many states, and you helped us understand this, had trigger laws. they put in place some of the most draconian bans on abortion. many women are being denude health care for totally unrelated things, arthritis, cancer. so when we say wum are dying,

women are dying. it's happening already. how do you make the most impassioned and urgent case to the people of georgia that's what herschel walker is for? >> well, i think that the most impassioned case, the most realistic, right, these are just facts. the reality is as the supreme court said in 2016 that a woman is 14 times more likely to die by carrying a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion in the united states. essentially what we have seen now is the equivalent of something that is like a death sentence. and that is not high penitentiarybly but what the information that the supreme court knows is what the information that governors and legislators in these states know. in mississippi, before dobbs, mississippi is the state that brought the case before a court, a woman is 118 times more likely to die by carrying a pregnancy to term than having an abortion. in mississippi, their department

of health has put forward reports that show that 80% of the cardiac deaths in that state during pregnancy happen to be black women. black women don't make up 80% of the female population there. so when you stha this is deadly, it is deadly. and i think what makes this the most tragic and chilling in our country is that this is with information that these politicians, these lawmakers and judges already knew. >> michelle, one of the hallmarks of the trump era is that people with nothing to lose come forward because they're scared about our politics. and with nothing to gain. you know this woman has nothing to gain except scorn. you look back at the testimony people have come forward. you look at people who come forward and told stories of trump's corruption and they all essentially end up in some version of witness protection because of the on line threats, because of the real threats to their lives. they get relocated.

she has absolutely nothing to gain financially, reputationally or for her safety. do you think we still live in a country where people can hear the truth and can understand what she risked to tell the truth? >> i think we do. and yet at the same time, i think that these are really daunting times. i think we do and we can see that by kansas. but people are calling roevember. people are taking concerns to the ballot box. they did that in kansas. they're likely do that in michigan. michigan, the largest petition ever in terms of number of signatures related to this issue, preserving roe v. wade and reproductive freedom in that state. over 700,000 signatures, people from michigan saying, yes, we care about reproductive freedom. and across this country, people do. women do. republican women do. and that's something that we shouldn't lose any kind of mind about and i think this is one of the reasons why republicans are

actually scrambling and not knowing how to respond. i think this caught them off guard. it is a cultish thing taking place. that is why it swept up all the laws going into effect. women are fighting back. i think we'll see that in november. >> we're hard and cynic will in what matters. i have a theory on this story. some of this from the reaction of our own viewers and some my muscle memory admittedly from a different time in politics. i don't think the problem for herschel walker is he had one and wanted two abortions. i think the problem for herschel walker is what is before the voters of georgia is his extreme views on abortion in the final five weeks. and the reason we know is that such a loser for republicans is because people like blake masters are taking abortion positions off the website. the reason we know it is a loser is because it failed in kansas. tell me how you sort of process this story and what you're looking for in the final four

weeks ahead of the mid terms, charlie. my reaction is that hung on any georgia republican official was in any way surprised by it or that this will make any difference to them because they're all in on the hypocrisy. they have the extremism which they walked into. they have the lies of herschel walker, you know, continues to lie about this. it's yale not about principle. it's not about character. it's not about some moral issue here. it's all about power. i think that sort of, you know, naked position is really going to be problematic for them.

i'm glad you mentioned michigan. you look at the state of michigan which was really very, very closely divided in the presidential election. this was it. this was the state that donald trump won back in 2016. when it comes to herschel walker, i guess one reason why i'm cynical and jaded is not just watching voters being lied to, not just seeing this hypocrisy on display, but seeing the entire republican party and vast majority of republican voters saying, yeah, we're okay with that. that is something that we are willing to embrace. and we always wondered what donald trump would do to american political culture. the man is a chronical liar and hypocrite. he is now institutionalized it in the republican party. you see it in the most dramatic and in many ways ludicrous ways

with somebody like herschel walker who they are all in on and trying to get a seat in the united states senate. >> so true, charlie. there was the post slogan democracies die in darkness. they actually take the last breaths with all the lights on and republicans just shrug shoulders and say oh, well. michelle and charlie, you're not going anywhere. we need to sneak in a quick break. we'll all be right back. ak in a break. we'll all be right back.

we're on the topic of

republicans who are struggling to defend their hypocrisy and positions that are so extreme voters are rejecting them on the issue of abortion. we have to tell but this story. this week the gop nominee for governor in maine, paul lepage found himself quite literally tongue tied at a debate when presented with a very simple question. what is your position on abortion restrictions. watch. >> i believe in protecting the mother's life for rape, sex -- for rape and incest and i believe in the vie ability. i along with dr. shaw and governor mills have never served as -- in the medicine -- in health care. and therefore i don't know where viability is. i would leave that up to doctors. >> what would happen if the legislature were to bring you a bill that added additional restrictions. >> i support the current law as it is. >> would you let it to go

into -- >> woulda lou a baby to take a breath -- >> would you let a restrictive law go into effect without your signature. >> the law that is in place right now, i have the same exact place you have and i would honor the law as it is. you're talking about hypothetical. if you're saying -- >> we're not. >> if you're saying taking the restriction away and making it illegal for the viability. no, i wouldn't sign that. i would veto that. >> so campaigns have staff and a lot of time to prepare for things like debates. other than, i don't know, policy announcement, there is nothing bigger in a campaign than a debate and the republican candidates for office in america in a post-roe world have nothing. they have nothing, michelle. >> well, in part they have nothing. if you think about roe v. wade itself, it was a 7-2 opinion.

five of those seven were republican appointed. so one, it is a falsehood that republicans have always been against is a abortion. prescott bush was the treasurer for planned parenthood, so when republicans are caught off guard is because the messages have slapped them in the face. now what to do in this new era of republicanism, which is very much divorced from the old era. this is -- these are fringe kind of issues you would not have seen broad platforms of republicans taking this position in the 1970s, 1980s. but this is what we get to in a space in which there is just been the pain for both essentially. right. this is what one gets to when a direction is failing and people can't articulate why they have a position because it is the position they've been told to take. >> charlie, in the 2000s, you had republicans that wouldn't touch abortion bans that eliminated exceptions in life of the mother of rape and incest.

i don't know if it is because they knew they were wrong and abhorrent. but they knew they were politically toxic for sure. >> oh, they absolutely knew it was politically toxic. which is why these -- the rush to pass all of the laws has been so stunning. and it is remarkable when you think about it, that so many republicans were caught flat footed by that. because this is a issue that they've been talking about for 50 years. this is been the litmus test for decades and i think the real tragedy for the pro-life movement is that they have decided that they're going to sell many of their principles for political advantage. they've grasped the ring of power and as a result they're not able to articulate why we ought to have a culture of life, they're not advancing a culture of life. they are engaging in this strict, crude politics and i

think the hypocrisy in the long-term is going to damage what they would like to have. rather than changing hearts and minds, i think it undermines their moral position and their credibility and you also see the incoherence of the politicians would could not articulate a position on something that ought to be a core principle based on what they've been saying for decades. >> michelle and charlie sykes, thank you sore spending time with us today. a quick break for us. we'll be right back. riven by eo, 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.

your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire first, there's an idea and you do something about it for the first time. then before you know it, you make your first sale it is a life changer... small businesses firsts never stop coming and you have a partner that always puts you first. no way! godaddy. tools and support for every small business first. ♪♪ you see that? that's the moment i realized i'm ready to open my own restaurant. ♪♪ start your financial plan today. ♪♪ ♪

what will you do? ♪ what will you change? ♪ will you make something better? ♪ will you create something entirely new? ♪ our dell technologies advisors provide you with the tools and expertise you need to do incredible things. because we believe there's an innovator in all of us. our internet isn't ideal... my dad made the brilliant move to get us t-mobile home internet. oh... but everybody's online during the day so we lose speeds. we've become... ...nocturnal. well... i'm up. c'mon kids. this. sucks. well if you just switch maybe you don't have to be vampires. whoa... okay, yikes. oh sorry, i wasn't thinking. we don't really use the v word. that's kind of insensitive. we prefer day-adjacent. i'll go man-pire.

thank you so much for letting us into your homes for another week of shows. we are grateful. "the beat" with ari melber

starts right now. happy friday. >> thank you so much. and welcome to the booet. our top story is the making of this sea change in marijuana policy. reaction now pouring in as president biden pardons all federal marijuana possession crimes. unburdening thousands of people of the criminal records that they were carrying and the associated setbacks of that history. >> i'm announcing a pardon for all prior federal offenses for the simple possession of marijuana. >> i thought it was monumental. >> there are thousands people that are convicted for marijuana possession who may be denied employment, housing or educational opportunities as a result of that conviction. my pardon will remove this burden on them. >> it starts with marijuana but where does it go from there. >> i'm asking the secretary of health and human sfrss an the attorneys from the state of process to review how marijuana is scheduled under federal law. >> i think it is a great decision. it is a smart move.