he is consciously, or not, a serial confessor. and yesterday, in a statement, he did it again. the once and perhaps future president of the united states said this about former-vice president mike pence. quote, he could have overturned the election. now, that's as clear a statement as you can find of his intent to remain in office by nullifying the results of a free and fair election. he's even using the language "overturn the election" which is the very thing the january 6th committee is trying to prove. now, that statement, if that's what it is called, essentially admit egg attempted to stage a coup, follows remarks in texas where he said this about members of the violent mob who took part in that very attempt, now in jail awaiting trial charged with destroying property, assaulting police officers, weapons possessions, and even conspiring in the words of criminal statute to overthrow, put out, or destroy by force the government of the united states. >> if i run and if i win, we will treat those people from january 6th fairly. we will treat them fairly. and if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons because they are being treated so unfairly. >> so unfairly, he said. that is a former president, dangling pardons in front of alleged felons, some of whom might be called on one day to testify against him. yet again, shouldn't be that surprising. he has done it openly before, and paid no price for it. back in 2018, when he refused to rule out pardoning his corrupt-former campaign adviser paul manafort. >> think the whole manafort trial is very sad. when you look at what's going on there, i think it's a very sad day for our country. he worked for me for a very short period of time. but you know what? he happens to be a very good person, and i think it's very sad what they've done to paul manafort. >> he would, of course, go on to pardon paul manafortor fort and roger stone, neither in his words, ever flipped on him. so what he saw on saturday shouldn't be surprising. the behavior and intent were out in the open years before, as was going back to his first campaign, his intention to let a foreign power hack american computers, and tamper with american democracy. >> russia, if you are listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. i think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. >> well, five hours later, according to the mueller report, the russian hacking began. his subsequent explanation to the special counsel's team was that it was a joke, quote, as was apparent to any objective observer. now, you would think this was perhaps his first lesson in how easy it would be for him to say the quiet part out loud and not face any consequences, except in truth, it wasn't. six months earlier, in what was for him at least a surprisingly self-aware, and maybe meta observation, he said this. >> i could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot somebody, and i wouldn't lose any voters. okay? >> now, in this case, thank goodness, he was speaking figuratively, which of course later gave rise to his handlers and enablers telling us, oh, we should take them -- we should take the man seriously, not literally. except, as it would happen, the best way to predict what he would do or how he felt about something or explain it after the fact would be to take what he said literally. want to know if he had a soft spot for white nationalists? take him literally. >> you had some very bad people in that group but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. >> now, to remind you, this was one of the two sides he was talking about. white nationalists chanting jews will not replace us and the nazi slogan blood and soil. and you didn't need to read behind or between the lines to see where his sympathies lay. you just needed to take his words at face value. and if there were any doubt at the time about his affinity for thugs, you could take what he said in march of 2019 at face value when he boasted about the bikers who supported him. saying, quote, i have the tough people but they don't play it tough until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad. nobody took that seriously enough at the time. nor, did many take these remarks in front of tens of millions of debate viewers as enough or see them as the foreshadowing they were of january 6th. >> who would you like me to condemn? proud boys, stand back and stand by. >> again, there they are. words that the former president's enablers did not take either seriously or literally, even though the proud boys certainly seemed to. and again, they, too, were part of a pattern dating back to then-candidate trump refusing to denounce former-kkk leader david duke when pressed repeatedly on it by cnn's jake tapper. he blamed it on a bad ear piece but would foreshadow his reluctance to condemn the haters in charlottesville. rub kwloe did condemn him for that but then went to become his staunch supporters and enablers. that was nearly six years ago. countless indictments of associates ago, two impeachments, and one insurrection ago, and so very much of it was openly telegraphed or openly admitted to after the fact. and even now, even someone who voted to convict him in his second impeachment, and who condemns his pledge to pardon january 6th criminals, still cannot completely rule out supporting him in 2024. >> well, we are a long ways from 2024. but let me say this. i do not think the president should have made -- president trump should have made that pledge to do pardons. we should let the judicial process proceed. january 6th was a dark day in our history. >> it was and you voted to convict president trump, as well. why can't you rule out supporting him in 2024? >> well certainly, it's not likely, given the many other qualified candidates that we have that have expressed interest in running. so, it's very unlikely. >> so, she voted to convict him in proceedings where a conviction would have barred him from ever holding office, again. which she was comfortable with when she voted to convict him. yet somehow, now, she can't simply say out loud what she said with her vote just a year ago. a year, that hardly saw the former president mellow. just the opposite. no. her remarks came just a day after he openly tried to make martyrs and heroes out of the mob that terrorized her own workplace, and threatened to hang the man presiding over it. and it is not like that threat is receding. here is what the man she still might support also said on saturday about the public servants, sworn officers of the court, who are investigating him. >> it really is prosecutorial misconduct at the highest level. these prosecutors are vicious, horrible people. they're racists and they're very sick. they are meantlely sick. if these radical, vicious, racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, i hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protest we have ever had in washington, d.c., in new york, in than that, and elsewhere, because our country and our elections are corrupt. >> so, just take a step back when you hear him say that at the end. that's a former president of the united states just in a sentence saying our country and our elections are corrupt. the former president of the united states is saying our country is corrupt. our elections are corrupt. nobody blinks an eye. can you imagine, for a moment, if any other president or former president said those words in previous years? there would be outrage. the president's words encouraging mobs to rally against public servants prompted atlanta area district attorney fanny willis to ask the fbi for help in providing security for buildings and staff for security assistance. she is investigating the former president's efforts to overturn results in georgia. she is doing her job. whether it comes to the threat he might pose to her office or democracy, she is taking his words and deeds at face value. others, sadly, still, not so much. joining us now, harvard legal scholar, laurence tribe. author of to end a presidency, the power of impeachment. professor tribe, i want to read something that you tweeted today i saw. you said mr. trump's public confession last night all but daring the attorney general to seek a grand jury indictment against him for seditious conspiracy and for giving aid and comfort to an insurrection to, quote, overturn the election, is the last straw. the government must call his bluff. end quote. what do you mean call his bluff? >> i mean indict him. there's no more confession that we could expect. no clearer admission of guilt than the one that he said out loud. he said that it was his purpose to overturn the election. that he had the right to do that. that he has the right to pardon people who were insurrectionists. he's offering them pardons in the future. he's threatening those who go after him. he's laid down the gauntlet, and if, in the face of all of that, the united states' department of justice, whose deputy-attorney general, lisa monaco, announced several days ago that they were investigating not only the insurrection but the plot to have fake electors. having said that, if the department of justice simply turns the other way. if the attorney general who said we will follow the evidence where it leads, turns the other way now, it will essentially give him a red carpet to waltz into the white house with a new coup, and if necessary, violent insurrection. this cannot be tolerated. as you said, anderson, he says the quiet part out loud. he's done it before. but before, we could look the other way. we could say well, he's not really going to shoot someone on fifth avenue. but this time, we know what he's planning to do. we know what he's already done. we know what almost succeeded. we know what he's threatening to do. if we care about this country, about saving it from someone who really asserts the divine right of kings to rule over all of us, we must indict him. there's no longer any need to dot the is, cross the ts, follow the evidence where threads. the evidence has led us to the rubicon, and we must now cross it. >> it is remarkable, when you think of the fact that this president stood in front, you know, encouraged a mobs of people to come to washington, d.c. on january 6th to do something and it's gonna be wild. and told them to march on the capitol. that, he is now telling -- saying he wants mobs to appear in cities throughout the united states where anybody is daring to actually just investigate him, according to the law. that -- i mean -- it -- >> basically, threatening the police. he is threatening the fbi. he is threatening the department of justice. what more do we need? for heaven sake, you know, the january 6th committee has put it all together as jamie raskin said just yesterday, i think. we don't any longer need to look for the smoking gun. it's right in front of us. what is he going to say? you didn't give me any miranda warnings before i confessed on national -- on national television in texas before i issued a public statement saying it was my intention to overturn the election? and a statement he issued the day after doesn't need miranda warnings. he's confessed. it's a voluntary, open confession. and what i am afraid of is people are going to say, jeez, it can't be that bad if he's willing to admit it. that's ridiculous. he's admitted that he tried to overturn the government of the united states. he's admitted that he is going to pardon, if he gets into office, the people who, when that plot failed, stormed the capitol, injured and killed people, smeared the walls with feces. carried confederate flags through the capitol, in a way that wasn't done even in the civil war. tried to crush people to death. threatened to hang the vice president. said nancy pelosi, where are you? they were looking to kill the speaker of the house. we have to wake up. he has said the quiet part out loud, and the quiet part is, i'm going to take over if i don't win the fair way -- whatever that might be -- i'm going to take over. he's obviously going to claim that he won the next election, whether he wins or loses. he is putting in place throughout the country to count the votes in his favor, whether they go that way or not. he is encouraging state legislatures to send trump slates or the slates of whatever trump substitute might run for president next time even from states where he loses. this is extremely serious. no former president has ever committed so grave a crime against the country right in front of our very eyes. the crime of seditious conspiracy and aiding and comforting an insurrection that he, himself, fomented. and he's threatened to do it again. i don't think we can afford to wait, and i'm waiting to see what the attorney general of the united states will do now. >> should the attorney general -- who i think -- was he a student of yours at one point? >> yes, merrick garland was a wonderful student, and i believe he has a spine. i believe that he is not going to let this former president threaten him and say come and get me, i dare you, make my day. that's what he is saying. and if, in the face of that, the evidence that is in front of all of us does not lead not simply to following the bread crumbs up the path but actually bringing an indictment through the grand jury that is now sitting in washington, effectively, the attorney general will have been saying something that i don't think merrick garland wants to say. and that is, he is being influenced by politics and by threats. we don't negotiate with terrorists. we certainly don't lay down in front of them, and let them walk all over us and this is domestic terrorism, he is threatening. he is saying i will do the coup all over again. and if it has to get violent, it'll get violent. >> let me just ask you. i mean, if -- is it -- should the attorney general of the united states take into account potential ramifications of charging a former president with something? i mean, it -- it -- it -- in this country, the idea of, you know, one party, uh, in power and the attorney general investigating a former president -- that raises all sort sorts -- many people will see that as political, might see that as political. should the attorney general take that into account? >> well, it's politics, either way. he certainly should take into account the fact that if he does not pursue the evidence that is now in front of us, that will be transparently political and cowardly. yes, of course, it's not a routine thing to charge a former president. it's also not a routine thing to have a former president who openly confesses that he tried to overturn the election in which he lost. it's not a common thing for us to have a former president who wants to turn this into a dictatorship. that's what's unusual. of course, we don't want to go after somebody for vindictive reasons. that's not the point. the point is to hold him accountable so that he doesn't do it again, and only convicting him of aid and comfort to an insurrection would disqualify him from ever running again. >> laurence tribe, appreciate your time tonight. thank you. >> thank you, anderson. coming up next. we have breaking news on that effort at overturning the election. suggesting that the plans being discussed by former president's associates for seizing voting machines, which we reported on before, was actually broader than we thought when the story first broke. we will have that, ahead. if you look around, you'll see the world can be pretty smart. sit down. actually, really smart. good boy. where do you think you're going? smart move, mom. wicked smart. i think they get it. at capella university, we thought your education should be smart, too. so smart, it can work at my speed? -yep. -you sure it can keep up? well, with flexpath, you can finish the bachelor's in business degree you've started in 18 months for $18,000. capella university. don't just learn. learn smarter. one of my favorite supplements is qunol turmeric. turmeric helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. unlike regular turmeric supplements qunol's superior absorption helps me get the full benefits of turmeric. the brand i trust is qunol. (burke) with farmers auto multi-policy discount, the more policies you have with us, the more you could save on your auto insurance. (man) hey, hon! (wife) hi, honey! (man) like what? (burke) well, you'd get a discount for insuring your jet skis... and boat...rv...life... ...home and more. you could save up to forty-five percent. (man) that's a whole lot of discounts. (burke) well, we offer coverage for a whole lot of things, and you could save a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. (kid) sup, dad! (burke) seventeen-car garage you got there? ♪we are farmers♪ ♪bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum♪ your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. 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 i am here because they revolutionized immunotherapy. i am here because they saw how cancer adapts to different oxygen levels and starved it. i am here because they switched off egfr gene mutation and stopped the growth of tumor cells. there's a place that's making one advanced cancer discovery after another for 75 years. i am here... i am here.... because of dana-farber. what we do here changes lives everywhere. i am here. thanks to realtor.com's home alerts we were able to see the newest homes on the market, super fast. so we could finally buy our first "big boi house." big boi house. big boi kitchen! big boi waterfall shower! big boi crawl space. big boi sold sign, big boi logo. realtor.com to each their home. we are talking tonight about the former president and the ongoing going threat he may pose to democracy. it builds on a story that was pretty shocking when we first learned a portion of it, namely the draft executive order telling the defense department to seize voting machines. now, turns out, that was only part of the story and only one of the proposed executive orders. cnn's paula reid joins us right now with the exclusive. what have you learned? >> well, anderson, sources tell cnn that following the 2020 election, former-president trump's legal advisers drafted two versions of an executive order to seize voting machines. one, directing the department of defense to seize the machines. and the other, directing the department of homeland security to do so. now, we of course previously reported the existence of the draft order tasking the pentagon with seizing machines. that document has been handed over to the house select committee investigating january 6th by the national archives. now, multiple sources tell cnn that a second version of the same document, also, exists. but it instructs dhs to carry out the same task. now, neither memo was ever issued but it shows, anderson, the lengths these advisers were willing to go to, as part of their broader effort to undermine the election results. >> do we know who drafted these executive orders? >> well, multiple sources tell cnn that the idea of using the federal government to access voting machines was the brainchild of retired colonel phil waldron and former trump national security adviser mike flynn. both army veterans were pushing the narrative that the election was stolen from trump. now, trump's former personal attorney rudy giuliani was spearheading these efforts to challenge the election results. we have learned that giuliani approached ken cuccinelli, who was second in command at the department of homeland security at the time about seizing voting machines after the election and cuccinelli told him he didn't have that authority. now, cuccinelli tells cnn that his discussion with giuliani never developed to the point of talking, specifically, about an executive order. now, the house select committee is now looking into this effort to draft an executive order, how it began, and specific hi the roles of giuliani, flynn, waldron, and sidney powell. >> paula reid, stay with us if you can. i want to bring in our chief legal analyst, jeffrey toobin. former federal prosecutor. jeffrey, what do you make of this? >> well, i think it's just worth pausing to consider, you know, what it would mean to have the federal government, especially the military, seize our voting machines. this is something that happened in south american dictatorships in the 1960s. you know, when -- when the party in power didn't like the outcome of an election, they seized the voting machines and figured out a way to count the votes in a way where their favored candidate would win. now, it is true this didn't happen. but the idea that the president was considering this, that it got as far as a draft order, is just a chilling demonstration of how close we came to something that is literally un-american. >> and, jeff, if the former president had actually gone through with these insane executive orders at the time, would they have even been remotely legal? i mean -- >> well, i mean, they certainly would have been challenged in some states. but not in every state. um, i think the one thing they would guarantee -- they would have guaranteed was chaos, which may have been the point. uh, but -- um -- certainly, um, the -- the courts would have gotten involved. but, you know, there -- there are several states that -- that were dominated by republicans that they wanted to try to figure out a way to make trump win this election he lost. so, you know, i -- i can't tell you what exactly would have happened, other than this would have been in court. several courts would have struck it down but i can't say that every court would have. and i think the only certainty that comes out of a suggestion like this is, as i said, would have been chaos. >> paula, how does all this factor into the january 6th investigation? >> well of course, anderson, there is outrage when people first learned of the department of defense executive order. now, that we know there were two, there are going to be even more questions. now as we have noted, look, former-president trump did not sign these, neither one of these were authorized. so, there was clearly a line for the former president and his advisers but there are so many questions. what was phil waldron and -- and mike flynn -- what were they doing drafting executive orders? who, specifically, wrote this in terms of line by line? who was drafting these? and in talking to so many sources around this effort, it's clear, they were tossing anything at the wall that they thought could potentially stick and overturn the election. but when the wall they are throwing things at is inside the oval office, that's a problem and something investigators and house select committee are absolutely trying to get to the bottom of. >> paula reid, fascinating. appreciate it. jeffrey toobin as well. we have more breaking news tonight. the most significant sign yet the former vice president pence -- former vice president pence's inner circle is cooperating with the january 6th committee. new information on that. cnn is learning exclusively about the testimony provided by top insider who was with the vice president at the capitol on the day of the insurrection. that's next. my family's been devastated by covid-19. and we're not alone. we've all had to find new ways to keep going. and cue has made that easier. with cue, you get lab-quality covid-19 test results in just 20 minutes. speed and accuracy. it's just for the nba; it's for you too. cue health. the official covid-19 home test of the nba. go cue. go you. inner voice (furniture maker): i'm constantly nodding... ...because i know everything about furniture ...but with the business side... ...i'm feeling a little lost. quickbooks can help. an easy way to get paid, pay your staff, and know where your business stands. new business? no problem. success starts with intuit quickbooks. ♪"don't ya leave" by squeak e clean♪ [doorbell] ♪ [doorbell] ♪ [doorbell] all the delivery. no delivery fees. dashpass. some breaking news tonight on the january 6th investigation. cnn is learning former vice president mike pence's then chief of staff, mark short, you see there on the right of your screen, quietly testified wherefore the house select committee just last week. of course, pence defied the 45th president and their party to uphold the will of the voters and certifying the election results that night. our jamie gangel is part of the cnn team that broke this story. so, jamie, what more do we know about mark short testifying? >> well, it's very significant because he is a firsthand witness. he was in the room when -- when former-president trump was pressuring mike pence. mark short was in the oval office. he heard everything that was said when, on january 6th, he was at the capitol with mike pence when people were chanting "hang mike pence." he had to evacuate with him. he is someone who can speak to the committee, and tell them exactly what was said. and i think one of the critical things that we learned is that when he went to testify to the committee, let's remember, it was under subpoena and the documents he handed over were under subpoena. but i'm told he spoke to the committee at length, and while many of the interviews have been done virtually because of covid, mark short went in person to do his testimony. >> um, that's fascinating. uh, the -- do we -- do we know why he went in person? >> we don't. but i think that there's no question -- look. we know if someone -- a witness -- comes in person, it has a different quality to it. it has eye contact. people relate differently. so, i think that it speaks to the fact that he's such a critical witness and that he was willing to do it. >> yeah. we mentioned earlier, the statement that the former president released yesterday. i want to read it, again, because it -- it's potentially really significant. he said quote mike pence did the right to change the outcome, he didn't exercise that power. he could have overturned the election. end quote. given that statement, combined with the fact that mark short testified before the committee, what does it mean for the likelihood of former-vice president mike pence actually testifying? >> right. we don't know, yet, if pence will cooperate. although, i'm told that on friday, pence is likely to address trump's statement when he speaks in florida to the federalist society. but let's just remember with pence, short's testimony comes months after discussions/negotiations between his attorney and the lawyers on the committee, as well as a subpoena. my understanding is that the committee is still contemplating an invitation to pence. but pence would like his aides to speak to the committee, first, as much as possible. there is a political calculation here. we all know pence wants to run for president in 2024. it's not a very well-kept secret. so, he is walking a fine line between saying that he did the right thing on january 6th, and the fact that he somehow thinks he can not alienate trump any more or the base. but i want to give you one quote. a republican source who is very familiar with pence world said about whether or not pence cooperates, quote, this is all a political calculation because he wants to run for president. somehow, he thinks he can straddle and do the right thing but not alienate the base. end quote. i think that's a heavy lift, and that there are people around pence who really want him to testify. >> yeah. that is quite a straddle. jamie gangel, appreciate it. fascinating reporting. with me now olivia troye. she was an adviser to then-vice president pence. she now leads the republican accountability project, a conservative group that opposes the former president. olivia, appreciate you being with us. does it surprise you that mark short testified in front of the committee? and -- and what kind of information do you think he was in a position to disclose? >> well actually, i am not surprised that mark short would go in. i mean, at this point, he has nothing to lose, right? they are sort of on the right side of history when it comes to this, given pence's actions on january 6th. and so, therefore, they should be cooperating because politically, if you look at the political calculus, as your previous guest just stated, it is in pence's best interest to get this information out there. and to cooperate and actually tell the truth about the events that led to the lead-up of the election and the aftermath of the election, and what led to january 6th and that insurrection that we all saw that led to the threats against his life and the life of pence's family and everyone there who was there that day. and so, i think, you know, in terms of what will happen next, um, you know, i -- i actually really implore and hope that pence will be public about what happened because, really, as much as he can send de facto witnesses in to represent you, it's really his voice that needs to be heard directly by many of these people. >> he is clearly being very cautious about what he has said publicly. i mean, in the interview -- the -- the few interviews he's done about this, or comments he has made about it, you know, he's clearly figured out a way, in his mind, to kind of do a head nod to the -- you know, his thinking on that day, why he acted as he did, and at the same time, not alienate trump supporters. it -- it is that -- can he maintain that? or does -- to your point -- you know, him being more public about exactly what happened -- doesn't that risk tipping the balance toward just alienating the trump base? >> it does. but look. i don't really understand pence's strategy right now for 2024. i mean, he really does not have the backing of anyone who continues to support this man, trump. and i think it is going to be hard for him to garper the space. and so, i really think the bigger thing that mike pence could do is actually lead the country in a better direction because we have donald trump sitting down there, doubling down on lies about what mike pence could do on the election. he is continuing to sow division across our country. he is inciting potential violence, yet again. and at what point are you mike pence, and do you finally take a step back and say what is the better thing for our democracy? what do i want my legacy to be? i -- i'm aiming for that oval office. and the odds of me getting there are actually not that great. but what i can do is actually make a difference for our country, and try to steer us in a different direction because donald trump does not care about the republican party, nor does he care about you and me or any other americans, nor his supporters. that is who he is. he may say that he will pardon these people in these speeches, and he will speak on behalf of the insurrectionists but the fact is that he has no connection to the people that follow him. he doesn't care. he cares about himself. and so, that is the role i think that mike pence could play. he could really start to set the record straight, and start to stand with people like liz cheney and adam kinzinger. and really, that is where you make a difference right now. what really matters most of all is our democracy. and that shouldn't be a debatable issue. >> yeah. olivia troye, really appreciate your time tonight. thank you. >> just ahead, there is breaking news on the latest efforts by the united states to prevent a russian invasion of ukraine. we will two reports. one from the white house, the other from ukraine miles from the border where russian forces are gathered when we return. ka . dissolves quickly. instantly ready to start working. so you can bounce back fast with alka-seltzer plus. now available for fast sinus relief. omega-3 from fish oil is an important nutrient for heart health. qunol's ultra purified omega -3, is sourced only from wild caught ocean fish, not farm raised and comes in an easy to swallow mini pill. the brand i trust is qunol. unitedhealthcare medicare plans offer more... like the “visit a doctor anywhere our rv takes us” plan. and the “zero copays means more money for rumba lessons” plan. find the right plan for you from unitedhealthcare. get medicare with more. it's been nearly two years since the pandemic started. our students and teachers tried their best, but as a parent, i can tell you that nearly 18 months of remote learning was really hard. instead of helping students get back in the classroom, the school boards spend their time renaming schools and playing politics. schools that weren't even open. on february 15th, please recall school board members collins, lópez and maliga. our kids cannot wait any longer for new start. more breaking news this evening, this time on the effort to avert a possible invasion of ukraine. the vugz rugs responded in writing to the latest attempt to deescalate the situation. difficult task in part because the rugszs claim they are not threatening an attack. a debate played out during a u.n. security council meeting today. >> translator: you are almost calling for this. you want it to happen, you are waiting for it to happen, as if you want to make your words become a reality. this is despite the fact that we are constantly rejecting these allegations. >> the threats of aggression on the border of ukraine, yes, on its border, it provocative. our recognition of the facts on the ground is not provocative. the provocations from russia, not from us or other members of this council. >> so we have two reports now on the standoff. our chief international correspondent clarissa ward is in ukraine near where russian troops have massed. also with us, kaitlan collins, want to start with kaitlan on the breaking news. whars the latest from the white house on these negotiations? >> well, russia has responded to the written response that the u.s. sent to russia last week. we know that they received this, they delivered this. it is also handwritten but we don't really know, anderson, what it has said. the state department confirmed they did receive this but they are saying they are going to leave it up to russia if they want to lay out what was said. now, we know when the u.s. responded to these security demands by russia last week, we didn't really expect any breakthroughs because we were told by sources that the united states was basically going to say in this, what they had said publicly. that they were not going to comply with some of these demands from russia, including ones hike ukraine should never join nato, which we have told they are on the path to do so. but it is going to be a long path to actually get there. and so, we are not expecting any big breakthrough on this and of course as you saw today with the russian representative there at the united nations security council meeting, you heard from linda thomas-greenfield. the differences here have not really changed. they are still very obvious. you could hear them basically in this diplomatic brawl happening at the u.n. today, showing just how far apart these two sides still are are on who is responsible for what is happening, and where this could potentially be going. >> in terms of sanctions, if the russians invade, is it clear what the biden administration is prepared to do? >> one thing they did today that we have not really heard them confirm publicly, though we had kind of heard behind the scenes was something they were discussing, was preparing a sanctions package for these russian elites. people who are in putin's inner circle. that could be a step that could be significant if they take that because it has long been rumored a lot of people close to putin are maybe the ones who were holding his assets and, you know, president biden did tell us last week that he would consider personally sanctioning the russian leader if he did invade ukraine. and so, that would be a notable step because, so far, we had only heard from jake sullivan, the national security adviser, and other top officials talk about going after russian banks. now, they are talking about individuals and they didn't give us a list of who those individuals are. but i do think it speaks to the level of the sanctions that the white house is considering, should this happen. and trying to come up with really as a form of deterrence here. >> kaitlan collins, appreciate it. now, perspective from cnn clarissa ward on the ground in ukraine. miles from the border where an invasion might occur. clarissa, what are people there saying about the proximaity of russian troops and prospect of an invasion? >> you know, what's extraordinary, anderson, is that if russian troops do cross this border, the half a million people of this city are going to be some of the first to know about it. russia is just over 20 miles in that direction. you have got the sea to my left where there are russian boats. and yet, when you talk to people here, there is no sense of heightened anxiety or alarm. we have been here a couple of days now. people here are anxious a little bit but, largely, they seem to believe that there will not be a war. and this is in hlockstep with te messaging that's been coming from ukrainian leadership. they are really trying to project an ura of calm and an aura of control. and when you travel to the front lines waefz been doing, anderson, you see they really haven't changed since i was here two years ago. there is no sense -- at least from what we have seen -- that ukrainians are bolstering their forces here and their defenses. and really, preparing for some kind of an onslaught. >> so what does that mean? on the ground, how do the forces stack up in terms of equipment and weaponry? >> i mean from what we have seen, there is honestly really no match. you are talking about, on the other side of that border in russia, heavy weaponry, tanks. here, you are talking about men in trenches fighting with pretty light weapons. you know, obviously, we know that the u.s. has been supplying things like javelins, most recently. those are those tank armor-piercing missiles. but they don't have a real air force even. so, it's just difficult to see if push really did come to shove and there was some kind of an invasion, the ukrainians would be in for a very tough fight. and from what we have seen in just a couple of days, and we haven't been across the entire country so i can only speak for this area. but as i said before, it doesn't appear, yet, that the ukrainians here are really prepared for any kind of major, major incursion. >> what is the latest from the ukrainian government? what do they say? >> it's interesting. we heard from ukraine's security chief today. basically, accusing the west of trying to box ukraine into a corner, and force them to make concessions about the future of what will happen in the pro-separatist -- pro-russian separatist controlled area. and again, i think that really gels with what we are seeing overall, which is ukraine pushing back a little bit against the u.s. and against what we've heard from the u.s. about an imminent invasion being potentially around the corner. and they are trying to say, no, that's not the case. we're on top of this situation. we're in control and we won't have anyone tell us that we need to make x, y, or z concession in order to stop an all-out war from taking place. how long they can keep that up, though? with all the intelligence and all the what we are learning about what is heaappening on th other side of the border remains an open question, anderson. >> thanks so much. appreciate it. it's been a stressful show. so, on a lighter note, something we need. "jeopardy" champion amy schneider is going to join us to talk about her legendary-winning streak, give a few pointers to all of us. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪"don't ya leave" by squeak e clean♪ [doorbell] ♪ [doorbell] ♪ [doorbell] all the delivery. no delivery fees. dashpass. ok, let's talk about those changes to your financial plan. bill, mary? hey... it's our former broker carl. carl, say hi to nina, our schwab financial consultant. hm... i know how difficult these calls can be. not with schwab. nina made it easier to set up our financial plan. we can check in on it anytime. it changes when our goals change. planning can't be that easy. actually, it can be, carl. look forward to planning with schwab. schwab! ♪ after my car accident, i wondered what my case was worth. so i called the barnes firm. when that car hit my motorcycle, insurance wasn't fair. so i called the barnes firm. it was the best call i could've made. atat t bararnefirmrm, our r inry a attneysys wk hahard i could've made. atat t bararnefirmrm, to get you the best result possible. call us now and find out what your case could be worth. you u mit bebe sprisised ♪ the barnes firm injury attorneys ♪ ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million ♪ hey, welcome back. if you have been watching "jeopardy!" for the past couple of weeks, you have been watching an amazing player. amy schneider's reign has come to an end on "jeopardy!." with some very big winnings. schneider was defeated finally by a chicago librarian last week. she won more than $1.3 million on the game show, landing her fourth place on the all time regular season cash list, and second on the all-time consecutive list just behind legendary and current host ken jennings. i am so thrilled to talk to you in person. i have been watching you. your run has just been awesome. how do you feel? >> you know, i feel a lot of things. it's been pretty overwhelming experience these last few weeks, but, you know, mostly -- mostly good. mostly excited. it's been a lot of fun. >> what people don't realize often too about "jeopardy!" is that you're playing multiple games in a day. and it's before -- long before they air often times. so, the people in your life or where you work, they don't know, i assume, what you are going through or how you are doing. so, what has it been like to kind of keep that secret and then to suddenly have the show's airing and have everybody, you know, become part of it? >> it was -- it was hard. i'm glad it's over. i'm glad i don't have any secrets to keep about it. you know, i was able to tell my girlfriend, then my mother and my brother. but that was about it. and it was definitely a strange feeling being at work and knowing that, you know, i had done this kind of historic thing and nobody knew yet. >> and i read -- and correct me if i'm wrong, i read that your work didn't know. so, you were taking all the days off that you could. were you able to say why you were taking days off? were you like, you know what? i'm on "jeopardy!" and i need this time off? >> yeah, i mean, i did. you know, i had to give them a reason. and you know, that seemed -- excuse me. it seemed best to tell them i was going on "jeopardy!" and not that i was just mysteriously missing a bunch of time. but, you know, the people that knew about it at work weren't people that watch much "jeopardy!" and didn't have a sense of what it really meant for me to be going down there that much. they knew i had done fine, but they didn't realize what a thing it was going to be. >> i understand you practice the buzzer. so much is about the buzzer and i can talk about the buzzer endlessly with you. i understand you practice, as many do, with a click pen. i just want to watch some of your work, as we discuss this. let's take a look. >> what is sierra leone. >> that's correct. >> what is peaches into cream. word pairs for. >> amy. >> what are property taxes. 1970s, $1,000. >> what are panic attacks. what are subway stations. fan terminology, 12. what is a sturgeon. >> good. >> russian 800. what is par for the course. >> and the correct response to is par for the course for you. >> what i love about your play is it's so mysterious because you're not showing your hand, which is so disconcerting. is that part of your strategy, or is that just -- >> i don't know that it's part of my strategy. i think i didn't -- you know, i didn't want to show it just because i think it doesn't look as good to me when i see people, you know, with their hand up on camera. it's not a big deal, but i just -- you know, i didn't want that frantic clicking going on distracting from my cool appearance. >> what is it? are you a thumb buzzer or index finger? >> i'm a thumb. >> cheech marin claims it's fast with index finger. i don't know if that's the case. do you have a feeling on that? >> i don't know. i always practice at home with the thumb, so i wasn't going to switch it up in the studio. >> what i love about your play -- i don't want to brag, but i'm a former two-time "jeopardy!" champion -- not real "jeopardy!" just the downgraded celebrity version. but i love that your play is -- i mean, you play -- you pick a category. you play down from $200. you play it. and it's -- it's so great to root along with you. you know, there's a lot of different people who do it different ways. can you just talk about the strategy that you -- how you look at this game? >> yeah, you know, i -- you know, i'm definitely like a pretty obsessive "jeopardy!" fan, and i follow the debates online about different strategies and things like that. but when it came down to it, i realized that they -- i didn't feel like most of those strategies would make enough of a difference to be worth taking up space in my head. you know, i wanted to clear everything out of my head except just the questions. so, having some, you know, elaborate strategy for how i was doing, it was just one extra thing to think about that i didn't need because, you know, we're going to get to all the questions eventually. so, you know, might as well just do them in the way that i grew up watching "jeopardy!" and we played and is more fun for the audience at home. >> it's absolutely more fun. i should talk to you about the breadth of your knowledge. it's extraordinary. it's such a joy to watch. just awesome and so encouraging people to just be smart. it makes me want to be smarter watching you. amy schneider, thank you so much for being with us. congratulations. i'm so thrilled for you. >> thanks. thanks for having me. the threats of democracy on full display after the former president admitting over the weekend he wanted former vice president mike pence to turn over the election, and he would seek pardons for the attackers if reelected. coming up next, reaction to that from a former d.c. police officer who nearly died while defending the capitol that day.