example, 100,000 for a family. and right now if you look at the administration's plan, you could have a family with three kids making almost 300,000 bucks a year getting a check and many of these people have had no impact from covid. in fact, some are doing well. others are struggling. let's focus on those who are struggling. on capitol hill republicans breaking their silence on the controversy surrounding marjorie taylor greene. adam kinzinger telling chuck todd she should face consequences. >> i'd certainly vote her off committee. kind of in the middle, i think a district has every right to put who they want there. but we have every right to take a stand and say you don't get a committee and we definitely need to do that. also the biggest case since september 11th, that is how fbi agents are describing the investigation into those january 6th riots on the nation's capital. new reporting from "the washington post" gives an inside look at the fbi probe including new evidence suggesting the attack was coordinated in great detail. and new today, at least three of donald trump's lawyers abruptly left his impeachment defense team. it's unclear who will represent the former president just one week before the start of his second impeachment trial and it comes as new reporting from the "new york times" shows trump raised more than $255 million in the eight weeks he sought to overturn the election results. we have two reports from washington for you. as i welcome you both, we're going to go first to you, monica, and the impending impeachment trial. you wrote about what happened to donald trump's legal team. explain what you know. >> reporter: this is notable, alex, given at this moment in time the trial starts a week from tuesday. but a pretrial brief is due from whoever is going to be on the former president's impeachment defense team on tuesday, as in the day after tomorrow, and currently there are no trump advisers who can tell us who is actually going to be on that legal team because, as it stands right now, some of the attorneys who had signed up in order to represent and defend the former president have now exited. a source familiar with the matter is telling us that the decision was mutual in some ways and we can go in detail and talk about these three names we knew and reported publicly last week, butch bowers and josh howard had connections to each other or an ally of the former president. it was lindsay graham who said he recommended butch bowers to be somebody to work alongside donald trump. but we know all of these people are no longer going to be joining that effort or the team. that poses a couple of questions about other attorneys who were maybe going to be brought on board who may be have parted ways. but it just speaks to the timing and the significance here that there is nobody right now who is willing to stand up and say, i'm going to be representing the former president during this impeachment senate trial and then the other thing, we should point out here, alex, that is notable, everybody who did represent the president when he was in office for his first impeachment, none of those people have come back for round two. but in terms of this question of whether republican senators -- there would be need to be 17 of them who join their democratic colleagues in order to potentially convict former president trump. those numbers don't seem to be there right now. but, still, there are republicans in the house who are urging their republican counterparts in the senate to consider convicting him and that was something that congressman adam kinzinger, a republican of illinois, who did vote to impeach the former president, back when the vote was in the house last month, that's something he spoke to earlier today exclusively on "meet the press." take a listen. >> everybody that votes and uses process, i get it. it gives you a free way out. but this is a red line in american history. ten of us in the house took the tough vote. it's important to send a message and to say people like donald trump can never hold office again. >> reporter: there don't seem to be 17 republican senators who are thinking that way. it was notable, also earlier today on one of the sunday shows, that senator rob portman of ohio who has announced his retirement in a surprise announcement last week, has said that he thought that the former president's behavior was inexcusable but that's not necessarily enough to vote to convict him. especially, he made the argument, because now donald trump is out of office. that's a major question that many of these republican senators will be answering this week as the former president appears to be without a legal defense team at this stage. >> let me ask you one thing that i read. i think it was in your report, it may have been in someone else's, but the president's reaction to all of this -- the former president, i should say -- he thinks this is a very simple situation that he would be able to represent himself. it is that simple. jason miller stepped in, this is a trump adviser said that's not happening. there's no way donald trump will try to represent himself, despite thinking he could do it, right? >> reporter: we haven't heard from the former president on that exact topic. but jason miller put out a statement overnight saying this team hasn't been finalized but they expect there will be a team or group of attorneys who ultimately will have that task before the senate, that it will not be up to the former president. something else that we were the first to report at nbc news is that we do know that donald trump is considering writing a written letter as a form and part of his defense strategy that he would submit. but that would mean we don't expect him to make any appearances in person to defend himself. that was a question that had been raised over the last couple of weeks and we're told that is not under consideration right now. if anything, he would do this in writing, alex. >> thank you so much for that. let's go to capitol hill and the new revelations of the fbi's probe of the insurrection. what new evidence is coming out of that investigation? >> reporter: "the washington post" is reporting and citing the fbi is starting to find details about who is motivated and who participated in coordinating different ways to get -- not just to washington, d.c., but also the capitol itself. they start off that report by pointing out that in different parts of the country, a lot of these people who talked online met and traveled together to d.c. and once they were on the national mall, it appears to have been different groups that were led by different leaders that marched to the capitol. and a lot of this we knew was brewing online for some time. a lot of conspiracy theories, one qanon one said that if biden was sworn in, american democracy would fall apart, that being a motivator for some of these people. of course, that is just not true and did not happen. another piece of motivation is the president's rhetoric itself. a lot of people citing and using his #stopthesteal, many people believed the election was stolen from him and wanted to go in and attack politicians. the fbi does point out there is a difference between some people who wanted to be part of the rally and others who did go in with the motivation to act violently. some with the motivation to kill and that is going to take some time to lead through that discrepancy. but either way here on capitol hill, both democrats and republicans want to make sure that anyone who breached capitol grounds pay a price and are held accountable. take a listen to what val demings had to say earlier on msnbc about this. >> every hour, it seems like, there's more and more information coming forward. the ultimate result, though, needs to be that every person who participated in some way and five people losing their lives, one a police officer who was murdered that day, two other police officers committed suicide, needs to be held accountable. >> you heard there the need to be holding people accountable. that also includes people who are spreading conspiracy theories and that includes marjorie taylor greene. we should expect some movement to see if she will pay the consequences for echoing some kind of rhetoric that the president has espoused for some time. >> she has said she will never apologize. joining me now kathleen rice. she serves on the homeland security and energy and commerce committees. welcome. good to see you again, my friend. let's get to this growing controversy surrounding marjorie taylor greene. as a congress member who is always willing to reach across the aisle, what do you make of republicans -- with a few exceptions -- not really addressing this issue. can you work with the other side at all if they're not denouncing these conspiracies? >> well, it's great to be here with you again, alex. i was rated the 26th most bipartisan person in congress. i know what it's like to reach across the aisle. every legislative agenda that i have always includes a republican. but i'm telling you a red line for me is anyone who after we were all hiding and trying to save our lives were in the capitol that day on january 6th, after we got control back from the capitol, any republican who went up on the floor of the house and there are a number of people who i considered my friends and perpetuated the big lie, how can you possibly work with someone like that? the 140 people who refused to certify the -- that the election of biden was legitimate, i don't know how you can work with someone like that unless they come out and say, look, i was doing what i thought i had to do, but i do recognize this administration, as a legitimate administration. i remember back four years, my candidate didn't win. i didn't support donald trump. but guess what, i went to the inauguration, i recognized him as a legally duly elected president and i did everything i could to work with republicans in the house to help the american people. that's what we need more of and we don't see it from leaders like kevin mccarthy and he needs to come out and have the encourage that the ten people who voted to impeach the president, one of whom is liz cheney. those are people who are true profiles in courage. you cannot lead from behind as a political leader. you have to lead from the front. sometimes that means telling people what they don't want to hear, but what is important for them to hear. >> you bring up a good distinction. now you have so many republicans saying that joe biden is not a duly elected president and certainly there were democrats who were not at all happy about donald trump having been elected president. but i don't recall the chance, ever, of him not being fairly elected. hillary clinton, the day after the election, said he won. i got more votes in the popular vote, but he won. so the fact that you have republicans pushing back and saying, oh, now it's your turn, and you did this and you didn't acknowledge him as being a duly elected president, it's just not true. >> no. and there was a big difference, alex, between 2016 and 2020, right? there was no cult of personality around hillary clinton. she was a very experienced person who lost the election even though it was hard to take. she won the popular vote. that was very difficult to take. but fast forward 2020 and what you have is a cult of personality. you have kevin mccarthy who is feeling like it's more important for him as a leader to listen to the former president and those people who voted for him instead of saying, he lost fair and square. we need to move the republican party forward. this is what we stand for. we don't stand for donald trump. we don't -- because the public rejected that. we don't stand -- marjorie taylor greene does not represent us either. we're going to get back to the basics of what the republican party stands for and you see a lot of people -- you see the governor of arkansas saying, i couldn't support someone like marjorie taylor greene. that's not the republican party that i know. so we need more profiles in courage in republican leadership to say, enough is enough. joe biden won the election fair and square. full stop. but when you have this -- you know, this -- the republican party which is now casting its lot with qanon and all of the misinformation and disinformation you see on these social media platforms, i don't know what the republican party -- how it can survive. i just -- i don't see their path forward. but those are decisions they're making. i wish that they could go the root of a john katko, republican from new york, mr. kinzinger from illinois, ms. cheney from wyoming. those are true profiles from courage. they stand up and tell the public what they need to hear, the truth, whether they like it or not. and we don't see enough of that coming from the republican party. >> 100%. you mentioned your experience during the capitol hill riot. several of your democratic colleagues in the house this week, they've also expressed their feelings of threats to their personal safety. let's take a listen to something congresswoman norma torres told me yesterday. >> the enemy is within. we have members of congress that have weapons in their offices. i'm talking about ak-47s and other types of weapons that they maintain in their offices who are refusing to go through metal detectors and no one, no one should be afraid to go to work. >> a couple things to unpack there. you were quoted recently saying that you never would have envisioned violence breaking out during a floor debate when you started serving back in 2015. now it's another story. you can't be afraid that the person that you're having a little argument with on the floor with c-span watching is going to pull a gun and, like, shoot you. it's an astounding statement. do you feel your personal safety is at risk? how big a concern is it? and have you seen ak-47s? >> i'm very concerned about our physical safety. and, alex, it pains me to say this. i remember -- i've only been there for six years. i remember coming into a divided government at that time and we still were able to have conversations on the floor that were heated but we walked away and respected not just each other but the institution that we represented for the short time that we're going to be there. so when you have members that we know carry guns, refusing to go through a metal detector, that's a reason for concern, especially when you have the same members, most of them new members, you know, liking or retweeting calls for the assassination of certain democratic leaders or democratic members, that's just outrageous. it is outrageous. now, my good friend, ken, is an avid gunmen. we agree on nothing politically, but i like him as a person. he wanted to have this ak -- some kind of semiauthentic weapon that was painted like the american flag put on the wall in his office and he had to make sure that it was completely disassembled to the point that it couldn't work and he agreed by that. he didn't say, this is an affront to my second amendment right, i should have a loaded semiautomatic weapon hanging on the wall of my office. that was six years ago. and now we have members who are confronting capitol police officers who were there saving all of our lives on january 6th, pushing them aside and saying, i'm not going through this metal detector. this is why my colleague jared huffman and i asked the speaker to not only make the metal detectors around the house floor permanent and require members to go through them, but make us not be able to do the turnstile thing, if you want to go into our offices, we get to go around the metal detecter. you shouldn't be able to carry guns anywhere on the capitol hill campus, period. by the way, i say that with a heavy heart, alex. i wish that our politics were such that we could have heated conversations, policy disagreements, but still shake hands and walk away and still try to work together. but right now when you have people like marjorie taylor greene who does not represent the majority of republicans saying, no, calling for people's heads. you can't use that kind of rhetoric, especially not on the floor of the house. >> absolutely. that's being echoed in millions of families across the country as well. it's good to see you. come see me again soon. thank you. we're tracking a major storm on the east coast. it could last for days. we're going to map it out for you in a moment. it may be the most alarming warning about the coronavirus you may have heard yet. what one of america's leading epidemiologists is sayin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory gel... available over the counter. voltaren is powerful arthritis pain relief in a gel. voltaren. the joy of movement. did you know you can go to libertymutual.com to customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need? really? i didn't-- aah! ok. i'm on vibrate. aaah! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ new year's resolutions come and go. so give your business more than resolutions... give it solutions, from comcast business. work more efficiently with fast internet and advanced wifi. make your business safer with powerful cybersecurity solutions. and stay productive with 24/7 support. make this year's resolution better solutions. bounce forward with comcast business. get started with a powerful internet and voice solution for just $64.90 a month. plus, for a limited time, ask how to get a $500 prepaid card when you upgrade. switch today. now to the latest on the coronavirus pandemic and new alarm, the u.s. has more than 26 million confirmed cases nationwide after adding 176,000 new cases yesterday. more than 440,000 americans have died from the virus. just over 24 million americans have gotten at least one dose of the vaccine. 5 million have completed both doses. a new warning today for a top epidemiologist. the new uk covid variant could have a devastating impact on the u.s. >> the surge that is likely to occur with this new variant from england is going to happen in the next 6 to 14 weeks. if we see that happen, which my 45 years in the trenches tells me we will, we're going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country. england, for example, is hospitalizing twice as many people as we ever hospitalized at our highest number. >> dozens of protestors shut down a vaccination site for about an hour yesterday. several held signs calling the pandemic a scam ask asking people not to be vaccinated. the lapd reports all scheduled vaccinations were still given. florida emerging as a coronavirus hot spot. this time, for cases of the uk variant. the state now has at least 125 cases of this more contagious strain. it's the most in the country. the bulk of them are across three counties in south florida where health officials are trying to ramp up vaccinations to curb the spread and slow down the mutations. let's go to cori coffin in ft. lauderdale. this is disturbing. what's the latest here? >> reporter: in these cases out of florida, alex, are the uk variant. 125 cases. california behind with 113 cases so for. broward county, miami-dade county, palm beach county make up 60% of the state's cases as a whole. in addition to the uk variant, epidemiologists are watching closely in this state for the south african variant and brazilian variant. florida has the largest brazil population in the nation so watching closely for that one in particular. dr. fauci says these variants is a reminder of how badly we need the vaccines across the country as quickly as possible and some residents are heeding that warning. listen to what one man told me. >> makes a big difference in everybody's coverage. but i just got my first shot. so we're looking for the next one and then hopefully the variants won't make that much a difference. i guess we have to wait and see if the vaccines work. >> reporter: alex, the question is why is the uk variant so prevalent right now? the florida department of health says it's not because of the state's fully open policy, but the state's sequencing research that they have found so many cases so far. just a heads-up for all of you, in today's ask alex segment, we're going to take your questions about the new strain of the covid variant. this breaking news, 110 million of us are under threat of a severe winter storm. we're giving you a live look at washington. it's getting its first major snowfall in two years. more snow already falling in chicago today, burying up to about 9 inches so far in the area. more than 150 flights have been canceled at the city's airports. the storm is taking aim at the east coast. people are preparing for up to a foot of snow or more. let's go jen nessa webb. what are we in for? >> i always come in for the bad news. one word, historic. this system is powerful. already starting to make its way out of the midwest. it will linger for a few more hours in that area, but it continues to gain steam. we've lost a few people, but we have over a hundred million people who are going to be impacted. i want everyone to take a look at d.c., philadelphia, new york city. right now you're sitting under a winter storm warning. i do think this transitions into a blizzard warning later on tonight going into your monday. what's happening right now, you can see the blue, heavier bands across d.c. to philadelphia slowly but surely starting to make its way into the new york area, new york city, you'll start to see the heavier bands along with a little bit of freezing rain that is currently happening out towards the carolinas. it will move out of the mid-atlantic but the brunt of this storm, as you said, alex, we are talking about over a foot. this will be historical for new york city in some isolated areas. we're talking about 18 to 20 inches. and that's one factor we're going to see snowfall rates up to 2 to 4 inches per hour. everyone needs to be off the roadways and that's really going to start tomorrow morning as this nor'easter starts to develop. you can see the forecast even for boston, for the next 36 hours, we could see 6 to 12 inches in that area. another issue i do think we'll have widespread power outages starting tomorrow morning to tuesday. please have a plan in place with these winds picking up about 45 to 50 miles per hour, potentially, we're going to see some downed trees and power outages likely across the board. so the timing goes like this, right now we're just seeing the storm starting to pick up. it does not develop until 7:00 a.m. and then it lingers all the way into tuesday. right now the national weather service and even myself forecasting from 7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning from 7:00 p.m., new york city could potentially see nine inches. on top of that, another 4 going into your overnight hours. this is a developing event. anything that you're seeing right now, alex, is just the beginning. things will really start to rev up tonight. sorry for the bad news again. >> i'm glad we know. we need the heads-up. connecting the dots. if the republican leader in the house meets with donald trump two days ago looking for the former president's help and donald trump chats with the leading gop conspiracy theorist in the house, does that mean the gop is the party of trump? green? both? these are alarming questions. we'll get to them after a break. . i'd certainly vote her off committee in terms of eviction, i'm not sure. kind of in the middle. a district has every right to put who they want there. but we have every right to take a stand and say you don't get a committee and we definitely need to do that. >> i think republican leaders ought to stand up and say it is totally unacceptable what she's said. i saw a couple of the videos over the weekend and one had to do with violence, as i see it. there's no place for violence in our political dialogue. there's no place for violence in our country. this is something that we got to get away from. yeah, i think people ought to speak out clearly. >> two republican lawmakers breaking their silence today in the controversy surrounding congresswoman marjorie taylor greene calling her behavior unacceptable. the georgia lawmaker remains defiant, even touting a conversation she had this weekend with donald trump saying she has his full support. joining me now, don calloway, democratic strategist and founder of the national voter protection fund, david jolly, former congressman from florida and susan del percio, republican strategist and msnbc political analyst. thanks for being here. david, you first here. for the most part, republicans have been silent on green and she's saying now that she has the full support of trump who met with gop house minority leader kevin mccarthy this week. is the republican party still the party of trump and then by default does that make it the party of marjorie taylor greene? >> certainly, alex. it is the party of donald trump. it's the party of marjorie taylor greene. the party is getting more trump-like. not less trump-like. in terms of marjorie taylor greene, i think we also have to really think about the seriousness of this and we either believe the fbi reports are not about qanon and conspiracy theory groups, and maybe not personalize it so much about marjorie taylor greene but let's go back to what the fbi said. starting in the summer of '19, they said, what is different in this environment is not the white nationalism. we've seen that before. what's different about the misinformation and conspiracy groups that feed that. the fbi director testified to congress warning that the great threat we face are the conspiracy group theories. we have a member of congress who has been elevated from those conspiracy groups to the congress. whether or not the republican caucus takes this seriously will demonstrate to the people whether or not they take the national security implications seriously or not. i agree with adam kinzinger. i think it's hard to remove a member of congress who has been duly elected by their district, but you can isolate that member, remove her from committees and so forth. >> she's been put on the education committee which i find stunning. it was the members of the 14th congressional district in georgia who put here there. there have been no hearings, no punishment of any kind from members of congress, where is the line for the republican party? what's it going to take for them to denounce someone from their own party or at least hold them accountable? >> well, i felt that line had been crossed five years ago when donald trump stepped onto the political stage, but apparently not. they keep pushing it. i think what we're seeing right now is kevin mccarthy's desperate. he knows if he wants to have any shot of regaining -- taking the majority of 2022, he needs money. because of the actions of him and his conference, he's out with corporate america. he's sucking up to donald trump and his $70 million path that he has. he's clearly not a man of principle. he's flip-flopped twice on donald trump, first calling him out and saying he's not such a bad guy, basically. at this point, i think every house member should be forced to take a picture with marjorie taylor greene and say, i support her or not. whatever the case may be. they should be held accountable. they either support her positions and her committee appointment or they do not. either way, let them own it. the one positive out of this, alex, is that we're finally seeing the people who stand quiet being forced to speak publicly. some of them happy to do so. others not so much. but we should know where every member stands. >> so barring the photo booth opportunity there, don, what do you think accountability looks like? is it realistic in this congress? >> i really don't know what accountability looks like. but i do think -- i agree with everything that they have had to say, you cannot kick someone out of congress absent them being a present threat because they were dually elected. my concern is i have not seen republicans from the rank and file or leadership repudiate this woman. what you can say, we don't have to demonize trump, we don't have to demonize marjorie taylor greene, but we can create a universe in which these ideas have no space to breathe. you can take her off of committees, you can isolate her into the bowels of the congress, that's an accountability. i just don't see how the body at large, i have a hard time seeing how the body can hold her accountable because there are 435 virtually independent islands. there's not a real boss structure as you would see in corporate america that we rely on. that's why congress is a unique space. and you have to keep going back to the idea that she was duly elected and you have to recognize her as a member of congress. that's what i'm going to do because we're better than they are. we recognize her humanity and the position that she's earned. >> okay. let's switch gears here. overnight several of trump's lawyers abruptly left his impeachment team just over a week before the start of this trial. so, david, does it matter who trump's legal team is or what they say or do you think no matter what, republicans will still vote to acquit him? >> yeah, it's a great question. i think senate republicans will largely carry the water for donald trump. where the former president needs to be careful, the evidence and what happens if house democrats are managed under the impeachment rules to call witnesses? this could get the president -- the former president in a very tricky spot where he needs a defense, frankly, to fuel the republican senators who otherwise by default want to protect him. i think we may see the president submit a statement, possibly, but you have to hold out the question, does donald trump try to -- there was debate during the clinton impeachment -- the impeachment proceedings for bill clinton about the president being taped, having questions tape and that tape shown at the trial. i think we might see something like that develop, but it wouldn't involve questioning from anybody. i think the president is going to push to have a monologue submitted and i imagine house democrats will say, they don't accept that and vote to table it. >> let me ask both of you, susan and don, is there any correlation between trump's legal team heading for the door and trump talking with marjorie taylor greene, giving her support? she has supported qanon conspiracies big time. do you think that maybe that's the direction trump wants to go in in this trial and these lawyers were like, i don't want any part of this? susan, you first. >> i think the lawyers refused to spread for donald trump and put their law licenses on the line. that's what it came down to. i don't think it's necessarily about this congresswoman or what lies she's used or hateful rhetoric. i think donald trump does not want to back down from his narrative and there's no one there accept for rudy giuliani who he doesn't want doing it to go out there and spew those lies. that's what it comes down to. >> don, a lot of the reporting suggest that is donald trump really wants his attorneys to focus on the election being stolen. >> yes. >> so maybe is that something that these, perhaps, well educated and intelligent lawyers were just thinking it's just not true. we can't go there? >> that's precisely what it's about. i've spoken to members of legal community and donald trump still wants them to push the big lie. he does not understand that he's on trial for inciting an insurrection. he's on trial for the four corners of the 24 hours of january 6th, what he did to incite it, to get people to come, what he did at the prerally. what he did to not stop it. he sat there pleased while it happened. that's what he's on trial for. he wants to expand it to talk about stop the steal and marjorie taylor greene is the leading preacher in congress right now of the steal having been stopped. that's why they're meeting and we wants to continue to press this. susan is right, lawyers are professionals. they have professional licenses on the line here and they're not willing to get up in front of congress and perjurer themselves and injure their entire careers. it blows my mind that bill barr would submit himself and really injure his career and future like that. i guess he's an older guy, closer to retirement. but reputation means so much in professional circles and it's shocking to see guys like him and rudy giuliani do this. and what you saw from trump's legal team this week, no, we're not going to do this. >> don, david, susan, see you next sunday. developments in moscow today challenge president biden's get tough stance towards russia. why it looks like vladimir putin's free pass may be coming to an end. pass may be coming to an end. sure, your health insurance tells you to see a doctor but, um, look around. these days it's not that easy. you're telling me. but humana helps make it easy. human care gives you tons of ways to talk to your doctor: phone, computer, in person, or tablet. hey jean! hi! this is just a quick follow up. your numbers are looking great. you don't even have to put on shoes. ooo! easy peasy. you like that, huh? mhm. humana. a more human way to healthcare. ♪♪ in a year of changes. don't take chances on your taxes. be 100% certain with jackson hewitt. we'll get your taxes done right, guaranteed. ♪♪ now to this breaking news from russia, thousands of people are behind bars right now detained today in a violent crackdown on protests against president vladimir putin. [ chanting ] >> there may be chaos on the streets of moscow today, president joe biden will be giving his first major foreign policy address tomorrow and it comes days after biden's first official call with vladimir putin. joining me now, ann garin and michael mcfall. good to have you both here. let's get into this. ann, you first. you wrote about biden's call with putin. what are you expecting him to say tomorrow? will there be a major russia reset? >> alex, what we expect vice president -- second time i have do that this week. we're expecting president biden to thank state department employees for their service, for essentially sticking to their knitting during the trump era. it is symbolic move that he's going to the state department to do that. and then we expect him to talk in really pretty broad brush terms about what he wants american policy to look like going forward and it could be summed up as america is back, america is returning to a leadership role in the world. we do expect him to be -- to take on russia a bit and also probably to address in similar terms both china and the sort of larger issues in the hemisphere, cuba and venezuela. on russia, he really got it out of his system with the call with putin a few days ago. >> i want to get to china in a second. michael, how do you think that phone call with putin went? did it go the way it should have? >> remember, we only know the readouts. we don't know what they talked about, having written those readouts before. but the read out that the biden white house put out defined the new russia policy and it's a reset from president trump even if there's a lot of continuity with the trump administration. it's three things. we'll engage with mr. putin when it's in our national interest. they did that and extended the new start treaty. we will contain russia's belligerent behavior aboard and he listed issues where that's going to be part of the biden strategy and third, the biden team and president biden himself is going to speak up on behalf of human rights. mr. putin has never heard anybody mention the word "navalny" to him in the last few years. president biden said we're going to stand up for human rights. whether they do anything about that that changes putin's behavior is another matter. >> if president biden spoke to putin about election interference, do you expect anything to change on that front because biden is in office now? >> yes, i do. in two ways, one, i think the biden administration will invest in resilience. we can do that without negotiating with anymore. we have not done that. we think in defense and we put money in the pentagon, we don't think of defense in the cyber world. we need to change that balance, number one, and number two i expect that there will be some kind of sanctions from the biden administration in response to the solar winds, the latest hacking that we know about -- by the way, we only know about that one. we don't know about other ones that may be still classified. i expect there will be new sanctions as a result of that, yes. >> which would make it tougher on him than what we saw with partnership who claimed that he, of course, would you say tougher on russia than any other president in history. let me ask you about this, ann, there's a new book out there, i'm not going to name it or get into it except to say that the idea of some sort of compromise relative to donald trump, that is still out there. is it still an open question? . >> yes, we don't know the answer to a basic question about the former president's interactions with president putin. why from the get-go was he as differential to putin in public and sort of weird from what we know in private, including kicking his own aides out of one meeting and that kind of thing. we don't know the answer to that. there's one pretty simple potential explanation which is that former president trump was so sensitive about any suggestion that he was an illegitimate president, that putin and russia had helped him win in 2016, that there was no discussion about him having to do with other russian bad behavior because he felt that one deflated the other. there are lots of other theories out there. i do not know the answer to that question. but it remains -- it definitely remains an open question. >> how about you, michael? as you look back, are you still convinced that there is some sort of compromise that exists? >> well, first of all, i just want to remind everybody how incredibly unusual it was that we had a president who wanted to befriend putin and basically his entire administration thought that was a bad policy, right? that's ending in the biden era. and i think symbolically for the president to be going tomorrow to speak at the state department with his hold close colleague, tony blinken, is a signal there's not going to be these divisions in the biden administration. with respect to what we don't know, don't know, all would i say is i was very struck when the mueller report finally came out that there was not a big chapter on the financial ties between the trump organization and russian entities. now, there are different explanations. up, maybe there is no financial ties. two, maybe it's classified or, three, maybe they saw things there and then it got interrupted, and that question i still think remains. >> okay. quickly because i've got 30 seconds for an answer here because you quoted trump in your article saying nobody ever brings up china. they always bring up russia, russia, russia. do we have a sense of biden's plan for china? >> yes. in many ways it's a continuation of trump's plan, probably minus the -- the rhetoric. we do expect a continued tough-on-china plan both economically and militarily. the big open question is what he does with the trade relationship and all of the tariff diplomacy if you want to put it it that way going forward. >> being a. we'll continue to watch with both of your help. guys, thank you so much. you mentioned tony blinken. tomorrow, in fact, in an exclusive one-on-one andrea mitchell will sit down with antony blinken in his first interview as secretary of state. watch that tomorrow here on bz msnbc. drawing the line on who gets a covid relief payment. should people making $75,000 a year get a check? the future of another round of relief checks will be the focus of washington this week. democrats are probing to move forward with president biden's trillion dollar plan. republicans today calling for a more limited bill. joining me now is heather long, economics correspondent for "the washington post." heather, big welcome to you. first question out of the gate here. how likely is it that will be any movement on this relief bill any time soon? >> well, the president has said speed is the top priority for him, and i think he'll have to make a big decision in the next week or two. does he want to play ball with republicans or not? obviously we got the big news today, ten republican senators have hitched biden their own plan so they are pitched a $600 billion plan versus biden's $1.9 trillion and this republican plan, they want to have a meeting with the president and they want to do smaller and more targeted checks so the first two rounds of those popular stimulus checks went to about 90% of american households so the vast majority of the population. what the republicans are saying is let's strike a deal. let's target it more to the people who really lost jobs, who are still really hurting this winter. let's do it to more like 60% to 70%, and the president will have to decide pretty soon. >> in fact, as i look at your piece, the title of it, will it suggest cutting off stimulus checks to americans earning over $75,000 could be wise. but let's look a bit closer at some of the data that's behind this. let's take a look at this graphic. it's from your research, and it shows the effects of stimulus bills on spending broken up by income. the green is spending from the first relief checks in the spring. yellow is spending from this rather orangey yellow from the latest round and it shows people with higher incomes save the money. people with lower incomes generally spend the money, so do you think this same kind of trend continues with any possible third round of checks? >> that's really what it looks like, and the big reason that there was a difference between that first round, we all remember how horrible march and april were. >> yeah. >> and there was such a huge job loss across the income spec trumpet people were really hurting. there are still a lot of people hurting had. there's nearly zo million americans who have not gotten their job back who lost it last spring but there's a real difference now. we're talking about the k-shaped recovery. recession is over for the top 40% of americans and that's roughly that 100,000 cutoff. for the bottom 40%, and you can see it in that chart, those are your low-wage jobs, the restaurant jocks, the hotel housekeeper type of jobs. those folks, the unemployment rate is still about 20%. we're talking depression levels for those low-wage jobs, and that's where people really want to target the aid. with the individuals 50,000 or less and couples earning up to in this research, the spending data we were just looking at. it would indicate about 75,000 and the republican plan is to go up to about 100,000. >> okay. "the washington post"'s heather long. thanks for clarifying all of that. it's a very important topic. appreciate your time. new alarming details are emerging about the storming of the capitol. why it's looking more and more like a coordinated attack. that's next. e and more like a coordinated attack. that's nt.ex research shows people remember commercials with nostalgia. so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's one that'll really take you back. it's customized home insurance from liberty mutual! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ at t-mobile, we have a plan built just for customers 55 and up. saving 50% vs. other carriers with 2 unlimited lines for less than $30 each. call 1-800-t-mobile or go to t-mobile.com/55. when you switch to xfinity mobile, you're choosing to get connected to the most reliable network nationwide, now with 5g included. discover how to save up to $300 a year with shared data starting at $15 a month, or get the lowest price for one line of unlimited. come into your local xfinity store to make the most of your mobile experience. you can shop the latest phones, bring your own device, or trade in for extra savings. stop in or book an appointment to shop safely with peace of mind at your local xfinity store. good day, everyone. from msnbc world headquarters here in new york, welcome to "weekends with alex witt." developing this hour, with just about a week until his impeachment trial, donald trump appears to be without a legal team. trump's lawyers are unclear and undefined after several abruptly left. he may not have a legal defense, but some republican senators are still showing an unwillingness to convict. >> i'm a juror. i'm going to keep an open mind as we go through this, but i do think the constitutionality issue has to be addressed. i mean, we would be convicting a private citizen, as you know, someone who is out of office and that sets a precedent, and i think all former presidents. >>