tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC February 8, 2022 1:00am-2:00am PST
tomorrow. oh thanks you at home for drove-ing us for this next hour. rachel's on hiatus, but as she told you before she left she will be here in a few weeks for the state of the union address. and that is scheduled for march 1st. it will be joe biden's very first state of the union address as president. not to be confused with the address last year which was made to a joint session of congress. and that's because when a new president gives a speech to a joint session of congress, shortly after taking off, it's technically not a state of the it's technically not a state of the union address. so next month will be his first state of the union address. as president. obviously, it's not going to be the first one he's attended. in addition to being in congress for decades, as vice president, he sat behind president obama for seven state of the union addresses so he is very familiar with the view from up on the dais. and the most memorable thing about the president obama memorable state of the union 2014 address when one of his pointing and grinning at an
audience member went viral. it had nothing to do with what was said by the president. harry truman's state of the union address was the first one to be broadcast on live tv. ronald reagan 1986 address was the first-ever to be postponed because the challenger space shuttle disaster happened the day it was originally scheduled. after barack obama's 2010 state of the union, almost all anyone could talk about was the moment when a sitting supreme court justice appeared to visibly disagree with the president while he was speaking. bill clinton's state of the union addresses are largely remembered for being very, very long. not only does he hold the record for the longest state of the union address ever, but of the seven longest state of the unions in history, bill clinton delivered four of them, the other three by the way were donald trump. but trump's final state of the union address in 2020 will too
be remembered for something having to do with nothing he said, actually in fact, nothing to do with him at all. it will be remembered for this, house speaker nancy pelosi at the end of trump's address, sitting right behind him and ripping up her copy of the speech in two. immediately afterwards, reporters caught up with her as she left the house chamber. >> madam speaker, what did you do to trump's speech tonight. >> i tore it up. >> why did you rip the speech up, madam speaker? >> because it was the courteous thing to do considering the alternative. >> now, you may remember the republican party then immediately fell into this hysterical pearl clutching over standards of decency and decorum, which was pretty rich, given the standards of decency and decorum generally observed by the sitting republican president. but when donald trump himself was asked about it, a couple of days later, he took it even
further. >> well, i thought it was a terrible thing when she ripped up the speech, first of all, it's an official document, you're not allowed, it's illegal what she did, she broke the law. >> it's illegal, she broke the law, that happened two years ago today, and friends, those comments have not aged well. now, first of all, in case this needs clarifying, nancy pelosi did not break the law. she ripped up a photocopy of the president's speech that he gave her, destroying a photocopy of any presidential speech handed out to anyone were illegal, the prisons would be overflowing with washington lawmakers and staffers but there is someone with a well known history of officially destroying historical record, "politico" was first report that president trump had a habit of ripping up documents and the papers were scotch taped back together, even some that
were torn into confetti sized pieces because there is a law, the presidential records act, requiring that, as you know, presidential records be properly preserved and stored by the national archives. sure enough, when the january 6th investigation started receiving trump white house records, that trump had fought for months to block them from getting, some of them had indeed been ripped up and taped back together. and this week, the "washington post" reported that quote trump's shredding of paper was far more widespread an indiscriminate than previously known. throughout his presidency, staffers made a habit of coming in behind trump to retrieve the piles of torn paper left in his wake. and then quote jigsawing the documents back together with tape. and it went beyond just tearing things up. one senior trump white house official said he and other white house staffers frequently put
documents into burn bags to be destroyed, rather than preserving them and would decide themselves what should be saved and what should be burned. the january 6th committee asked for certain documents related to trump's efforts to pressure vice president mike pence, for example, some of them no longer existed in the person's files, because they had already been shredded, end quote. a former senior trump official said of trump, quote, he didn't want a record of anything. now, i guess one simple straightforward way to describe that might be this. >> it's an official document, you're not allowed. it's illegal what she did. she broke the law. >> apparently not content to violate the presidential records by ripping them up into pieces and putting them in burn bags and shredding them or burning them donald trump apparently took a whole bunch of presidential records with him when he left the white house.
and just stuck them in his golf club in florida. the "washington post" reports today that the national archives had to go retrieve 15 boxes of records from mar-a-lago that should have been turned over when trump left the white house and the national archives says that trump staff are quote continuing to search for additional records that may have been thrown into trump's u-haul when he left the white house for mar-a-lago. and don't forget to check the clubhouse for any more letters from world leaders. make sure a bomb of presidential memorabilia, or memoranda didn't get stuck behind the wet bool at the pool. the post and now "the new york times," both report that the contents of the 15 boxes include correspondence between donald trump and kim jong-un as well as a letter president obama left for trump when obama left the office and also in the boxes is amazingly this, the national weather service map that he
altered with a sharpie, during a hurricane briefing in 2019, and now you will recall that he used a sharpie to change the projected path of a hurricane in order to match what he had incorrectly said about the hurricane's path in a tweet. dear leaders tweet obviously couldn't be wrong so an entire weather system had to be altered by sharpie to match it. that sharpie-gate map definitely belongs in the national archives. we need a record of it. mostly because the people of the future will not believe that something so ridiculous ever happened. as for how those 15 boxes end up at mar-a-lago instead of at the national archives, the times reports that it happened during a hasty exit from the white house, when instead of packing up like a president planning to leave office accordance with the law should have been, quote, mr. trump had spent the bulk of the presidential transition trying to find ways to stay in power. at the time, mr. trump's aides were either preoccupied with
helping him overturn the election, trying to stop him, or avoiding him. speaking of trying to overturn the election, there is no word on the question on everyone's minds, is there anyone in the 15 boxes that might be of interest to the january 6th investigation? let's find out. joining us is the reporter who had the original scoop today, that the national archives had recovered multiple boxes of trump presidential records from the former president's mar-a-lago estate, jackie, good evening to you. thank you for being here. this is definitely one of those stories that you can't make up and i'm sure you weren't ever expecting that you would have to report on, but in fact, we have had hints of this from the past. we've known for a while that donald trump had some sort of habit of destroying documents he wanted to be destroyed. >> yes, so much of what has shown over the last five years, he did all of this pretty publicly and flagrantly, as was
reported in 2018, for "politico," a brilliant story, the president had a habit of ripping up documents that he carried from his past life as businessman into the white house, despite it being unlawful and despite being warned by his former chief of staff and white house counsel repeatedly. the entire apparatus around record archiving and the whole process of the white house records management, and the transfer to the national archives had a completely changed approach because of the former president's habits, he was shredding everything in sight, and it was almost involuntary and pretty habitual. but this actually continued through 2021. right until he left office, which we found out in our reporting about the january 6th investigation, that we were not, we really had no idea that it was going to lead to where we are today which is the national
archives telling us that actually, it resulted in 15 boxes being retrieved from mar-a-lago, after they were found to be properly transferred from the trump white house to the national archives, this is in violation of the presidential records act and perhaps even more importantly the archives said in their statement to us that trump's lawyers are still actual lit searching for additional documents and might be handing more documentation over. >> so we know shredding, we have now heard of burn bags, i don't know if that means that the burn bags stuff actually got burned, i spoke to omorosa yesterday who alleges that he was eating something, ripping something up and eating something which is odd considering he is a germa phobe and not putting things in his mouth. what do we know about what is not there? are there documents that might be entirely missing that we will never find out about? >> we know the career staff of
records management at the white house devised management around the president's throwing out things, and the presumption is the operating basis under the presidential records act that every document president creates is a presidential record. it has been up to the people of the career staff around him to decide whether or not certain classified documents should be incinerated. so thrown into a burn bag and then taken to the pentagon, where ultimately, those documents would get burned up. it's unclear if any documents were maybe lost in that period, when people hadn't quite realized that this president was not abiding by normal processes, but i think the recent development does cause some more questions about what don't we know, what does the president still have, at mar-a-lago, and what are they going to, what's actually in those 15 boxes, and we're not actually surveying for
the national archives, to realize that they were missing a lot of documents, that they recovered last month, from mar-a-lago, but we do know that some of these documents that have come out, that we have been able to reveal, the love letters with kim jong-un and a letter from president obama that he left for president trump, as he took office, in 2016, that these were documents that were very publicly and widely extensively reported on and known. so if the archives had decided that they were maybe potentially looking for a document, and because it was probably reported on, they wouldn't have been able to found it until this past month. >> well, jackie, in part because of your fabulous reporting we have too much news in the show and we are overflowing with stuff so we can't discuss it now but definitely the next time we're on, we need to talk about the cup cake on the table, that is quite remark able. we have been seeing a lot of people's homes in the past
couple of years but that is definitely for us. why. >> jackie, thank you, for the "washington post," congratulations on a very important story today. we're joined by michael schmidt, "washington post" for "the new york times" and in addition to new details tonight on the 15 boxes of records, rescued from mar-a-lago, michael also has new reporting on the january 6th committee. he writes that their goal is not just to hold hearings and write a report, they are hoping that their work will lead to criminal prosecution. the investigation is quote borrowing techniques from federal prosecution, employing aggressive tactics, typically used against mobsters and terrorists as it seeks to break through stonewalling from former president trump and his allies, and develop evidence that could prompt a criminal case. the committee which has no authority to pursue criminal charges is using what powers it has in expansive ways in hopes of pressuring the attorney general merrick garland to use the justice department to investigate and prosecute.
michael, good to see you. thanks for joining us. and your reporting tonight gets to a question that i think is on every views' mind. what can this committee do given the running out the clock ant stonewalling it continues to get from some people around the trump orbit and what your reporting describes is very much what i'm used to as a business journalist, when you see the government go after a company, where they start and they just move their way up, and they figure out ways to get to essential characters even if the central characters won't participate. >> i think that's right. the committee has done, is taking an aggressive stance, for several reasons. one of them is that a lot of the attempts to hold kt accountable, the mueller investigation, the two impeachments, the other two investigations going on, those all, while they did political damage to trump, and he ultimately lost the election, donald trump still looms, and
has not changed his behavior, and continues to push, push his brand of trump imp down into the country, in ways that really concerns democrats and anti-trump republicans. so they're taking the most aggressive stance that we have seen in any recent congressional investigation, and going out and getting phone records, sweeping up personal data of a lot of different people. and they're using link analysis, a tool that the fbi used in the years after the september 11th attacks to identify terrorist networks, to see who is talking to who. they have looked at the org chart of the white house. and of who was around the president. and they said, okay, if mark meadows isn't going to talk to us, and if this, this other senior official isn't going to talk to us, who were the aides that were right underneath them. and who were the aides underneath them? and what did they know? because they noticed when they went down the ladder, in the same way that you go down the
ladder, if you were looking at a mob organization, those people can be more vulnerable, they may be less loyal to the person at the top, certainly the younger you are, the less money you have to hire a high end white collar criminal defense lawyer, to defend you, if you're trying to stop the committee from getting your phone records, or stop the committee from questioning you. so the committee is doing this to your point, for, to, one, to get to the bottom of what happened on january 6th, and everything in the lead-up to it, but also because they're trying to come up with as much damming evidence as possible. to pressure merrick garland. they see this as the best opportunity to try and get the justice department to do something. garland has given no indication, there's been no public indication, that is investigating trump, or the investigation of january 6th is headed in that direction, and
with the january 6th committee, if it could have its way, it would develop as much damning information as possible, and be able to tie it in, you know, in good faith, into the good faith argument, to the criminal code and say to the justice department, okay, we went out and did this investigation, here is what we found, these are the criminal laws that we think have been violated, and you should do something. and they would probably make something like that public, and that would, at the very least, i think, force the justice department to at least publicly address the question of what they're doing in regard to donald trump. now, merrick garland has shown immense independence in his short period of time as attorney general, and he may just sort of try and ignore it. but there is the democratic party being pushed, you know, the democratic leaders on the hill, are being pushed by their base, which wants trump held accountable, and at the center
of this is liz cheney, who wants to use the most aggressive techniques possible. she's considered on the committee to be the most aggressive member. she said we're going to get criticized, no matter what we do, they're going to come after us no matter what we do, and they're not going to cooperate no matter what we do. so we have to use every tool possible. and that is why the january 6th investigation looks different than many, many, many other investigations that we've seen come out of congress. >> so there is great reporting that you've got today but there is also one big asterisk, in which you say the committee's aggressive approach carries with it another obvious risk, that it could fail to turn up compelling new information about mr. trump's efforts to hold on to power after his defeat, or to make a persuasive case for a justice department prosecution. after all, mr. trump survived years of scrutiny by the special counsel in the russia investigation, and robert s. muller iii and to impeachment.
despite of swirl of new investigations since he left office, the former president remains the dominant force in republican politics. i mean in fairness, we are learning new things that we didn't know during the impeachment. what's the point here, that we're not learning new things that fundamentally change anyone's thinking about what happened? we just have more details about what we already know? >> well, in many ways, i think january 6th maybe one of the most important historical events certainly to happen in my lifetime. you know, that i've witnessed. in other ways, you know, and because of that, we need to learn as much as we can about it, how did it happen, who was behind it, who were the intellectual people coming up with the underpin cans of it, the plans of it. and who was executing things, how did this all happen. how did thousands of people end up on the steps of the capitol in a violent, in a violent attack that led to deaths, and
to the interruption of one of the most sacred parts of our democracy. on the other hand, what else do you need to know about january 6th to change your mind about what happened? donald trump said everything out loud. he still defends what he did. he is as open about it as possible. so there are two sort of like competing issues here. and look, we are going to get to the bottom, as much of it as possible, and it is a highly important event, and i think the committee runs into difficulty when the report comes out, because they have made a lot of news, they put subpoenas out, they're the ones that put the subpoenas out, every week, and generating the stories, about the people that they want to question, and get documents for. and all of that has a beat to it, a momentum to it, that shows that this investigation is moving forward.
now, when that report comes out, and when they're done, where will that momentum have left the committee? will the committee have a new narrative, an entirely new appendage of the efforts to overturn the election, that change the way that we look at january 6th? or will it just be an evidence-based version of media and book accounts of it? we don't know. but the expectations are high, because the committee has put so much time and effort into this, and has generated so much news. so it will be interesting to see where they end up, what do they know that we don't know, and you know, in any investigation, i guess that's the real question. >> you have set us up very well, because we will be talking to a member of the january 6th committee right after this. thank you for your great reporting, michael. great to see you again. michael schmidt washington correspondent for "the new york times." we got a lot to get to tonight, including breaking news
out of the supreme court that's going to have an impact on this year's all-important midterm election. that ahead and adam schiff from the january 6th investigation joins us next. stay with us. the january 6th investigation the january 6th investigation joins us next. stay with us and you've got better things to do. can't i just get these delivered? managing your cholesterol can be a hassle. we get it. that's why letsgetchecked offers home cholesterol testing. take the test. track your progress. and adjust your treatment as necessary. lere can be this good.
today, approximately 140 republicans including many former republican members of congress, released a statement, criticizing the rnc for last week's censure of republicans liz cheney and adam kinzinger for investigating the january 6th attack on the capitol. the republicans argued that the rnc's decision described the violence that day as quote legitimate political discourse, end quote, made clear that it would rather be the big lie party, than the big tent party. still, despite the backing of only one of the two major political party, the january 6th investigation continues undaunted. the committee interviewed more than 475 witnesses and issued more than 100 subpoenas with
more depositions and revelations coming every day. joining us now is congressman adam schiff one of the members of the january 6th select committee. thanks for joining us this evening. i want to pick up a bit from the conversation we were just having with michael schmidt who says, you know, what happens, you are gathering lots of information, we are more and more certain of the plot to overthrow the election, and not just an attack on the capitol, that would have been bad enough, but what happens if there isn't something that causes donald trump to be held accountable before the midterm election? >> well, our goal is really to fully analyze what went into the multiprong effort to overturn the election, and how we protect our democracy, going forward. what kind of recommendations we need to make, to make sure we never have another january 6th or anything like it. it really isn't our role to prosecute the former president, or to develop evidence for the justice department to do so.
the justice department should be doing their own investigation. they certainly are vis-a-vis the violence on january 6th but they should be doing an investigation of these other multiple lines of efforts to overturn the election. but we will consider our work successful if we write the comprehensive report of what took place, if we make a series of sound recommendations and if we inform the public about what went on and i think that respect, i think the public will be every bit if not more important than the ultimate report. >> so when you make the point, and you made it before, that it isn't your job, it wasn't your role to do certain things, and that the committee by nature of the type of thing it is, does not have the ability to prosecute criminally, and that the justice department should be, what's your sense of, and that sounded a little like dissatisfaction from you, do you think the justice department is pursuing this as vigorous as it should be? >> well, i feel they're pursuing
the violence on january 6th vigorously and including people who were not present, but nonetheless were involved in a seditious conspiracy. where i have less confidence is other efforts to overturn the election, such as the former president on the phone with the secretary of state in georgia, trying to coerce that secretary into finding 11,780 votes that don't exist. i think if you are, if you or i or any of our viewers were on the reporting a conversation like that, we would be under investigation and it shouldn't matter that this is the former president of the united states. so those issues i am concerned with, but in terms of our role, we are going to get to the bottom of all of these efforts, we're going to make them public, and we're going to try to legislate in a way that protects us from any recurrence. >> you make an interesting distinction, which you've written about in your book, and that is whether you look at january 6th as a day, and an attack on the capitol, a violent
attack on the capitol or whether you see that remarkable dangerous dark attack on the capitol and on the process that was under way in congress, as being the fruits of an effort to overturn the election itself, and to undermine democracy, and it is that bigger second issue that is probably of greater long-term concern to us as americans. >> i think that's exactly right. and tragically, when we look back on this, you know, the last few weeks, at the anniversary of january 6th, we're in a worst position than we were a year ago, because the republican party has decided, rather than repudiate what went into that violence on january 6th, rather than repudiate the big lie about our elections, that drove people to that violence, they're using that lie all around the country, to disenfranchise people of color, to attempt to subvert the next election, their lesson seems to be if they couldn't get a secretary of state in georgia to find 11,780 votes that don't
exist, they want to make sure they have somebody in that position and others next time who will. and so that threat goes on. and in that sense, the work of our committee is not just looking backwards, it's very much looking forward. >> congressman, it is good to talk to you again. thank you for being with us this evening. california congressman and member of the january 6th committee adam schiff. we appreciate your time tonight. up next breaking news out of the supreme court todd tonight. janai nelson from the naacp defense fund joins us to make sense of it. stay with us. ake sense of it. stay with us
the state of alabama is divided into seven congressional districts. the one outlined in red is the seventh. it's the only district in which the majority of the people who live there are black. in 2020, when the united states collected census data, the number of african americans living in alabama had increased. meanwhile the number of white people living in alabama decreased.
and yet when republicans in alabama updated their congressional maps, based on the new census data, they didn't account for the change. under the new alabama maps, the state would still only have one majority black congressional district out of seven, despite the fact that roughly one quarter of alabama residents are black. now, the new maps were subsequently challenged in court, and a three-judge panel ruled that the new alabama congressional maps violated the voting rights act. and to fix it, alabama would need to re-draw the lines to create a second majority black congressional district. the state of alabama appealed that ruling to the supreme court. asking the supreme court to put a halt on the lower court's mandate. that they had a second majority black district and today, the supreme court did that, in a 5-4 ruling the supreme court reinstated the old alabama congressional map, the one with just one majority black
district, and they essentially put that lower court ruling on ice, until the full case can be heard before the supreme court. however, that's not going to happen probably until the fall, which means for now, all elections in alabama will be held according to the old map. the ruling has the potential to erode voting rights not just in alabama, but it could have lasting implications for the entire country. joining us now is janai nelson, the associate director and counsel of the naacp, legal defense and education fund, which is represent can the plaintiff that brought this case. ms. nelson, thank you for being with us this evening. this is a bit of a liar and a truth teller statement because the supreme court and justice kavanaugh's opinion on this suggests they are acting in the interests of the citizens of the voters of alabama by not allowing changes to the maps too close to an election. tell me what is wrong with that
argument. >> there is a lot wrong with that argument. it allows a map to stay in place that a three-judge federal court 230u7bd found to found to be discriminatory against black alabamaens. we represent individuals and black organizations, in alabama, that have filed a lawsuit, under the voting rights act, alleging that the new map that you just displayed is a dilution of black voting power. and we went through an entire seven-day hearing with 17 witnesses, and with a panel of judges, two of whom were trump appointees, that means the majority of the panel were trump appointees and they had the hearings and the record evidence, decided in a 225-page decision, that the map that you just displayed on the screen was racially discriminatory that it
did not reflect the population shift in the 2020 census and did not reflect the state's ability to draw a second district to allow black alabamians to elect candidates of choice. that is a violation of the voting rights act. it is clear the court stated. that and the state of alabama petitioned the supreme court to stay that injunction. and the supreme court based on a principle, not even actual law and precedent, but on a principle that was articulated in a case out of 2006, the court in a concurrent opinion, we only have a concurrent opinion to give us a sense of the court's thinking and reasoning on, this decided that allowing the maps to be redrawn within seven weeks of the earliest date of the kickoff the election would somehow be disruptive and violate a principle that, as i
said, is not in fact law but it is a notion that has come to govern election law cases in the past several years. so we are deeply disappointed that the court erected this barrier, this barricade, to voting rights and to political participation for black alabamians. the upshot is that this doesn't conclude our work. not by any stretch. we will continue to litigate this on the merits. and that same record that allowed us to win before the district court should, if law is just, allow us to win before the supreme court. >> and which means you will go, you will argue it before the supreme court, that it will be a real case. is there some sense though, given the way the supreme court has been acting and i should point out that chief justice voted with the minority, today, against the decision that was taken, is there some sense that things will change because people make, because people like you make a better argument? >> we can always hope that that's the case. we can only hope that the supreme court is still a court
that follows the rule of law. and that when presented with a decision that is well reasoned, that is thorough as the one that we referred is, the 225 page decision, from a court that spokes to 17 witnesses and evaluated all of the evidence with distribution, unlike what the court did here, where it decided this on its shadow docket, without any arguments or prefer, when the supreme court finally gets this case, a full hearing which black alabamians and every person in this country deserve, we expect that the court will do the right thing, and recognize that this is a clear and blatant violation of the voting rights act. >> janai nelson we need more discussion about this but thank you for giving us your analysis for tonight, and giving us and the associate director counsel of the naacp legal defense and education fund. another bit of breaking news tonight, about the first cabinet level resignation in the biden
administration. eric lander, the head of the office of science and technology policy, who had a seat in president biden's cabinet has resigned after a white house investigation found that he had mistreated employees. remember, that biden had pledged early on that anyone in his administration who was caught mistreating colleagues would be fired on the spot. today, "politico".com broke the news that the results of the two-month investigation it found quote credible evidence that lander had violated the white house's workplace policy. tonight the white house released a statement saying that the president accepted the resignation with gratitude for his work on ostp, on the pandemic, and the cancer moon shot and climate change and other key priorities. we'll be right back. climate ch other key priorities we'll be right back.
it's time for the ultimate sleep number event on the sleep number 360 smart bed. what if i sleep hot? ...or cold? no problem, the sleep number 360 smart bed is temperature balancing so you both sleep just right. and it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. so, you can really promise better sleep? yes! you'll know exactly how well you slept, night after night. we take care of the science. all you have to do is sleep. don't miss our weekend special. save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus, 0% interest for 48 months on all smart beds. ends monday. more in ukraine is seeming more and more likely by the day, this weekend a u.s. official with direct knowledge of the latest u.s. government assessment told nbc news that russia has already assembled 70% of the forces it would need to
launch a full scale invasion of ukraine. and that russia could be fully ready for an invasion by next tuesday. i'm starting to wonder whether this is a situation in which the dog may chase the bus, but wouldn't actually know what to do with it if he caught it. the dog being vladimir pute physician that within clear. the same official told nbc news, an all out invasion by russia would likely cause significant casualties killing or wounding up to 50,000 civilians in weeks, and making up to 5 million people refugees and today president biden vowed that if russia invades ukraine, they could say goodbye to their new massive natural gas pipeline from russia to europe, which is a huge potential blow to the russian economy, which gets most of its foreign currency from oil and gas sales. and it would only be a piece of the sanctions levied on russia by western nations if russia invades ukraine.
president biden met with the chancellor of germany where the russian pipeline ends as a show of unity and force, and they both vowed that nato companies would respond harshly and stwiftly if russia chooses to invade ukraine. so what's in it for russia to moov forward with this? is there a viable off-ramp for russia if it decides not to? the other major diplomatic meeting today was between vladimir putin today and french president emanuel macron in moscow. spending part of the day yesterday on the phone with president biden and talking in person and heading to kyiv. and it is a powder keg and it seems every day we're sounding the powder keg with extra layers of dynamite but there is also a very real effort to find a diplomatic solution here and very real consequences for russia if it chooses to invade. so what i want to do, is does it really make sense for russia to start this war right now? joining us now is ann simmons, moscow bureau chief for "the
wall street journal," ann, thank you for being with us. for joining us, it's early morning for you over there, let's just talk about this, is there enough deterrent building for vladimir putin to think twice about this? or is he already thinking twice about this? is it possible that there is no intention to invade, there is a real intention to get the attention of the west? >> thank you for having me. the situation remains really intense around ukraine, it is still very much a crisis, we're still very much am crisis mode but the fact is that president macron came to russia today, and met with president putin, and president putin actually said that president macron presented certain suggestions that would indicate that there's a possibility that they could move forward, on negotiations, that there is a possibility that there could be some kind of concessions made. at this particular time, it
seems that russia is biding its time. this buildup of more than 100,000 troops around ukraine is extremely troubling, but nevertheless, negotiations are not off the table. >> how do you discern between negotiations with emanuel macron being there, with germany having said, it's not so big on this idea of killing this pipeline plan, and what a lot of people referred to as, you know, nerve ill chamberlain's appeasement of hitler at what point do you say you can't just invade another country and you can't get concessions for threatening to do so. >> certainly russia is going to say that they have not moved into ukraine yet, and that they're still in their own country. yes, there is a buildup of troops but the kremlin has argued that, look, we're in our own country, we're allowed to move our troops wherever we wish. and there is a way out of this, in terms of negotiations and
concessions, because the russians have been really clear that the one thing that they would like to see possibly is ukraine adhere to the minsk agreements which would mean an immediate cease-fire, which would mean that possibly the donbas region, which is a region which has been kind of ruled by separatist, ukrainian separatists, that that area gets some kind of special status. now, having said that, this is a threat, there are 100,000, or at least more than 100,000 troops around ukraine, and they are in a position where they could move in at any day. >> the russians, as you have indicated, have taken the position that their country, they can move troops around as they wish, and that these are exercises and things like that, there is evidence in the last few days, that it's more than what you just do for exercises. they're setting up hospital, field hospitals, and blood
supplies and the kind of thing that is not logical for exercises. but they are not actually stating that they're going to invade ukraine. and they in fact, continue to say that that's hyperbolic. what's your sense of what's really going on to the extent that you or anyone could know that? >> it's really difficult to tell, ali, because one of the strategies of mr. putin has definitely been to keep the world guessing. keep people guessing. keep them on their toes. and that kind of gives him the edge. now, there's no way to know whether or not the kremlin is indeed going to invade. russian officials are insistent they are not but time will tell because these troops are still amassed at the border. there is a great price that mr. putin and russia would pay if they were to invade ukraine. it is not only going to be a loss of life. there's going to be a huge hit to the russian economy if
they're faced with the punishing sanctions that the u.s. has promised. and russia is very aware of that. one thing that the kremlin has said is a red line is if ukraine is allowed to join nato, now nato has said that it continues to have this open door policy, and has said that it's in a position to invite to membership whoever it wish, and russia has said that's a red line, if ukraine is allowed to join this alliance. >> and that is a subject for a very long discussion, which hopefully we'll be able to have, thanks for being up for us tonight, ann simmen, the mouse cow bureau chief for "the wall street journal." we appreciate your time. coming up next something to keep your eye on tomorrow. stay with us. ething to keep your eye on tomorrow. stay with us
i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85,
call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information.
it has been three weeks since the gunman held a rabbi and three others hostage in a texas synagogue and claimed manager only cared about jewish lives, it has been two weeks since a group of neo nazis in boston protested outside a local hospital, and held up signs saying that the hospital kills whites, it's been one week since the neo nazi group took to the
streets of orlando, to wave swastikas and anti-semitic signs and scream about how jews are behind it all. and they got violent. the group attacked, speper sprayed, beat up and spit on a jewish college student reportedly because he had an israeli flag icon on his license plate. on the same day of that neo praez protest, another different neo nazi group showed up on an orlando state overpass and draped a giant swastika flag over it. it has been nearly a week of the latest round of bomb threats were called into 15 historically block black colleges and universities across the country and arkansas and florida says three of the hbcus received bomb threats from neo nazis who threatened to blow up and shoot up their schools. and just today, the department of homeland security issued a new bulletin warning of a heightened threat of terrorism. the alert states that there are quote continued calls for
violence directed at faith-based institutions, and racial and religious minorities. the recent attacks on the synagogue in texas highlights the continuing threat of violence based upon racial or religious motivation, as well as threats against faith-based organizations. threats directed against hbcus and jewish facilities, cause concern and may inspire extremist threat actors to mobilize to violence. recognize a pattern here? it's against that backdrop that republicans have blocked president biden's pick to be the special envoy to monitor and combat anti-semitism. biden nominated world renowned holocaust historian and professor deborah lipstadt for the role more than six months ago, respected around the world as one of the leading holocaust scholars but because the position carries the title of ambassador, it requires senate confirmation. president biden nominated lipsstadt in july and tomorrow
she is finally going to get a confirmation hearing. her nomination was stalled for months and during that time neo nazis have continued to terrorize and threaten jewish people and people of color. now just might be a good time to have a special envoy to combat anti-semitism. well, that does it for tonight. we will see you again tomorrow night. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. not only did former president trump rip up documents, he took some records with him when he left office. and the national archives said they had to retrieve 15 boxes from mar-a-lago last month. the question is, what does this say about trump's compliance with federal law? plus, president biden vows to bring an end to a major gas pipeline, if russia invades ukraine. the question is, will that threat be enough to deter putin? and tom brady has only been retired for a week, but the comeback chatter has already started. the question is, can we start the rumors about a return to new england now?