the courts emphatically rejected his arguments. and now with a majority in the supreme court they have as well. they said that the dissenting voice in the decision, trump has now -- the documents are being turned over. they also noted the fact that a number of close trump -- have been relying on similar claims of executive privilege to defy the subpoenas from the committee. it's not clear at this time how this ruling will affect those arguments if at all. she is a former staff supreme that -- other lawyers felt that an amethyst brief of the, asking the supreme court of what's to do -- policing records about january sex. and she joins me now. can we just start with what the court is holding here? and what it means on the ground? >> sure, so the court summarily denied trump's appeal. so they are refusing to stand in the way of the immediate release of these january 6th reference from the national archives, to the select committee. if there is someone working late in the archives, they might already be in the hands of the committee. so that is a resounding loss for president trump, former president trump, in the arguments that he made. it's a little -- but the court made clear that this -- they were not relying on the primary arguments that had been made. that is that president biden's willingness to waive anything of executive privilege, that is the reason why trump lost. it is not, i would say, a perfect ruling, but it does remain to be seen how this will in fact affect the claim of privilege from other members of -- >> so we know that he wanted to stop a bunch of these documents. we think they include binders of talking points about the 2020 election. some of them, were led to believe 700 pages were requested. just of the zero in on what you said, there is two sides. one of the question of that these two documents are the subject -- of the other thing is is it possible for an ex president to assert advanced privilege in the abstract. the court does not reach that second question essentially about whether they can or cannot, that remains to be seen perhaps in further litigation. >> that is exactly right. justice kavanaugh, he would have said -- he would have eluded that the former president does have quite a bit to say about the nature of the privilege, but the court in that 8 to 1 ruling decided that it did not have to decide. in other words, it refrain from making any ruling, saying that they did not have to. as the court of appeals said, on any standard trump would lose. and that's because they did not make a particular showing at all. he just claims absolute privilege. it did not work in the past, and then it would not work here. he did not make a good excuse as to why the privilege would apply, and that is why he ultimately lost this. >> yes, because the court of appeals which is of course upholding here, because the court of appeals concluded that president trump's claims would have failed even if they were the incumbent, his status as a former president necessarily -- the committee gets the documents, trump loses, but we should also know that this was not a close call legally by any stretch of the imagination. it would've been a shocking, a truly shocking and lawless action, had the court found it the other way. >> 100%. when he is tried to do which has worked so well for him in the past, is less this case take its time in the court system for him. and trump's gambit here, was to have the injunction in place pending a full review on the merits, and i'm sure his hope was that with the 2022 elections, that the focus will change. and so, the real issue here, and this is something that we focus on in our amethyst brief to the court, is the emergency and immediacy of continuing the threats. and this had to be decided quickly. and they dead. this is three months to the day, maybe three months and a day from the time that trump filed his initial petition to the supreme court. it is remarkable. as we've seen many times, this does not serve so quickly. but having this case, and the select committee can go on to do its important work. >> i want to go on to reemphasis and that point because i made a marquee comments about how the expedition had moved to block the vaccine or testing -- under osha that the biden administration had to come in. showing that they're motivated, and they had to move quickly. proving that this was a lightning case by the supreme court standards as they are likely to do today, but it's most likely that the delay tactic didn't work because right now those documents are being transmitted and that is the end of that. right? >> that is the end of that. as you say, there will be other fights that are coming up quickly. a flurry of activity about subpoenas and witnesses who have to come up. they will have to decide how this ruling affects them. it's very clear now that they cannot make these kind of blanket statements, like what's mark meadows and steve bannon, particularly that they must show why a particular document is or is not privileged. i think that is an important point because this theory of executive privilege that they offer before from this ex president donald trump is like a magic wand. on the schoolyard, you're playing tag, and you invoke some individual chill that covers you. it's important to say that there has to be an actual showing of something that pertains to what the jurors -- of what the privilege is. not just to have, you cannot touch me. it's important to have. perry, thank you very much. >> thanks. >> we have another round of subpoenas as we're saying tonight from the biden administration investigating january 6th. two prominent extremists and in turn at super -- as a white nationalist, an internet troll guy, who's around bullhorns and trying to get it in the track attention, he supports conspiracy theories and holocausts denials. he hasn't -- fuentes was a very common president in the rally. he was at the capitol on january 6th. according to the courts, on january six he rallied with your allies on the capitol. you called your followers to continue occupying the capital until the election results were deferred. the next day he went on to twitter, the capital siege was effing off some and i'm not gonna pretend it wasn't. -- he also mentions foreign funding, potentially connected to the plot of the insurrection. quote, as the capital tack began -- further you received about $25,000 worth of become from a french computer programmer, funds of the frontal borough of investigation -- mr. frontiers reportedly received about $250,000 worth from the same donor. the subpoenas comes just one day after the four that they sent yesterday to trump's top advisers like rudy giuliani, who try to aid his attempts of pushing the big election fraud lie. she sits on that bipartisan committee of january 6th, she joins me now, these two individuals congresswoman, how would you explain their significance? >> well, they were very active in whipping up mobs to overturn the election. we want to find out the extent of their ties, who else they were connected with. we are also very interested in that large amount of bitcoin funding that came in. and how that connects with their activities to overturn the election. we think it is pretty meaty, but i don't want to talk about that without saying, how gratified i am that the court decision on the archives material. some of the material has already been received by the committee, the material that had not been protected by -- and had been adapted by the former president's lawyers and we hope the material flows very promptly. along with these two subpoenas. >> yes, are you surprised? gratified by the pace here? which of course was always the biggest question. there wasn't that much core question about the merits, but whether he could drag this out. did you expect this to happen at this page? >> well i was hoping this would happen. we had asked the court to -- during their conference on january 14th. obviously, we don't know if they did. my guess is they must have. because this was released wednesday, mueller they were the holiday. so what we have to do in terms of the pace, i think it is important that the decision was applied to law. as i've said before on and bc, the former president failed to make his case. he failed to show irreparable harm, he should prove failed to which -- he did not make a case. and that is what the court found. he did decide the -- the mixing case is a possibility that the former president would make a claim, but they did not have to use that in this case. they just had no case. so it is very important that this material will start flowing very soon. documents, videos, notes, logs, etc. >> yes, there are a bunch of documents. i hope you can describe the parameters. it's about half the documents to go towards you. the significance of having to look into what was going on in that white house leading up to january 6th. >> we will be getting the visitors logs, the call logs, the outtakes of the videos that he made as people were trying to talk him into asking the mob to keep the capital. notes, drafts of remarks, it's all in the public record and we will get it all. it will help us put together the picture of what happens leading up to the riot, and on the day of the riots. >> yeah, just for folks who do not know this. of course there are about three hours that go by in the release of the video statement in which he tells the rioters that he loves them, and they believe. that reporter indicating that there were multiple attempts, multiple takes, that we're not on message to be released to the public. they are in the category of documents that will be moved to the national archives -- >> well that's our requests, and they exist, we will get them. i do think with insight into what the president was doing as a rioters were terrorizing the capitol and the government, what was the president doing? how is he fulfilling this oath to protect and defend the constitution? we've had testimony on this from people in his inner circle, but i think this will augment our understanding of that. and i'm looking forward to getting this information, getting the truth out the door congresswoman zoloft minh. thank you for your time, i appreciate it. >> anytime. >> don't go anywhere we got eyes on the senate floor, where democrats are fighting with their could be their last battle on the voting rights bill. they've been debating all day. we have voting rights -- and former u.s. attorney, eric holder, here to talk about the implications of this vote. what if it fails, and what that means? just ahead, we are back. 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. right now, at this very moment, the senate is in the midst of an intense debate. as the democratic caucus tries to pass a combined voting rights legislation package, that's already been passed by the house, but as two separate bills. this combined legislation is now act act -- here is some of what it would do. for voters it would make election day a national holiday. states would be required to keep voting lines, and will -- there be a minimum number of early voting days, and access to no excuse absentee voting. it would also create a standard for acceptable vibes -- and restore voting rights to felons, after their prison time ends. anna's order of broader structural level, require neutral redistricting. harassing or coercion electing officials become -- donors giving more than $10, 000, as well as, reinstating the voting rights act preclearance provision. which gave the department of justice -- and jurisdiction with the history of discrimination. that was destroyed, essentially, by the supreme court, under john roberts. now, the obstacle here, republicans don't like this. there's not one vote for it. they're not going to vote for any of it. they will of course filibuster the -- are on board, with carving out an exception to the filibuster, to allow democrats to bypass the 60 vote threshold, that's been used increasingly more. that's not a hard -- it's a long complicated history, between 1969 in 2014. there have been 161 exceptions of the filibuster, according to analysis by the brookings institution. just last month, a carving was made to allow democrats to raise the debt ceiling, to pay bills incurred by congress, and trump administration. democratic senators, joe manchin, and kyrsten sinema, are opposed to making a carve out for the voting legislation. they're also expected to vote against chuck schumer, to not get rid of the filibuster, but changing rules on it. so, if those two democrats hold the line in tonight's vote, and keep the rules as is, it would be the first time either of them cast this type of vote against the presidents agenda. president biden wants the rules changed. in some ways, this is an exercise of majority -- you shine a light on the obstacles to voting rights. as well as the peril that american democracy finds itself in. joining me now from the front lines, marc elias. nationally recognized -- mark, they've been going for a while. they have been debating, as the senate is designed to do. where -- how are you feeling right now watching this? >> look, i wouldn't be being honest with you if i didn't tell you that i am saddened, that it appears that this bill is not going to pass. the times that i came on your show and said, how essential this bill was, i wasn't saying that because i thought it was a nice thing. i was saying it because our democracy needs it. so, i appreciate all the senators having an opportunity to say their piece, but at the end of the day, tomorrow morning, voters are going to wake up around the country, and face an onslaught of voter suppression. congress will not have helped. >> you will -- you mentioned yesterday -- senator joe manchin. we should be precise here, imagine is on board with this legislation, on the merits, all 50 democratic senators are. he is not on board with changing the filibuster rules, to make it -- you can decide whether that's the distinction of a difference. when asked about what would happen if this doesn't pass, he explicitly mentioned you. i want to play that for you. and get your response on that. >> there's a lot of people out there who are saying that you are making it so they're not gonna vote to vote in the next election. >> the laws, they're the rules are there, the government will stand behind it, making sure that people have the right. vote we have that. the things we're talking about right now are in court. the courts have struck down, like an eye hole -- things are happening. we act like we are obstructing people from voting. that's not happening. >> the message from joe manchin is don't worry, we got marc elias. so i ask you, is he right? >> look, i'm worried. i appreciate the confidence that the senator has, and others have had, in me and the litigation. we are, in fact, litigating in a lot of places. that includes in the high okay city's mentioned. let's be clear, litigation is not the alternative or solution to the product, of mass voter suppression. it's not enough to say that we as lawyers will go to court, to protect voting rights. it's the obligation of congress to pass the laws necessary, to ensure that those rights are protected, that states are following them, and to give tools to litigators like me, to be in court. sadly, no. it's not enough that knee or lawyers from the government are in court. we need congress to act, and now that they're not going to, we need to redouble our efforts in court, because it's not going to a place that needed legislation. >> yeah, just add one more thing. i'm curious to hear a response to. when i saw joe manchin say that, we've covered the ohio case, we had you want to talk about it, the ohio case essentially went in your plaintiffs favor, because there were laws -- there was a referendum, i think a constitutional amendment to high ohio, that created these protections for non partisan jerry -- it was a legal change, affected by the state of ohio. along the lines of some of what's in this proposed legislation, that created the safeguard, that you litigated with. >> that's exactly right. the case in ohio, that you did discuss, was based on a constitutional provision that the voters had put in place in ohio, to prevent excessive -- you're right, that exact concept, a provision very similar to, that is contained in the freedom to vote act. that would give much-needed tools to bring this kind of case successfully elsewhere, throughout the country. >> i was listening to some of the debate today, on the floor, and what some of the republicans were saying. one of the arguments you hear from conservatives and republicans, this is essentially a partisan exercise. and you symbolize the partisan nature of it. you are a democrat, i don't think you make any bones about that. that's the part you are loyal to. that's the party on whose behalf you've litigated, this legislature was written by democrats. it was written by democrats so they have a better chance of getting elected, and now a long civil party lines, they want to force it on america, so that they can increase their chances of being reelected. would you say to that? >> so, look, i think this is a place where the media has a lot of work to do. the goalpost of move. in 2006, voting rights, the read authorization -- 98 zero in the senate. walmart, and the business roundtable, pushed for its passage. it was signed into law by a republican, conservative president. what has changed is not the democratic party would. as changes not that lawyers like me are somehow advancing pro democratic legislations, would change is a republican party. there is not a single vote in the house of republicans, who voted in favor of this legislation. there isn't a single republican who voted today, in favor of it. that is a real problem for our democracy. i have made this challenge and offer to republicans, over and over again. if they will identify a piece of legislation that they believe is suppressing voters, that is preventing lawful voters from exercising their right to vote, i will join with them in seeking to strike down that law. but, there's nothing that they want to do to remove barriers to voting. that's the problem. it's not a both sides issue, it's a one side issue. >> yeah, the last point i would make, if you want to get rid of marc elias, partisan democratic lawyer, in forcing voter access via litigation, we have a process called the preclearance process. the duly elected and -- which, under the statutory authority of the voting rights act, did -- went through, and looked at possible changes, as it -- as a neutral arbiter, on behalf of the voters. that has been taken away, that is trying to be restored, as one of the things we're doing here. >> yeah, if they want less litigation for me, they should vote for this legislation. because, if you have this legislation, there's less need for me to bring litigation. if the republicans want to less marc elias litigation, engage in less voter suppression. i'll make them a deal. if they stop suppressing the vote, i will stop suing them for suppressing the vote. >> all right, marc elias. thank you very much, appreciated. >> thanks. >> a lot of breaking news tonight between the senate biden supreme court ruling. i can think of no better person to bring it down, then eric holder, he joins me next. next when a truck hit my car, the insurance company wasn't fair. i didn't know what my case was worth. so i called the barnes firm. i was hit by a car and needed help. i called the barnes firm, that was the best call i could've made. i'm rich barnes. it's hard for people to know how much their accident case is worth. let our injury attorneys help you get the best result possible. we are keeping an eye on the ♪ the barnes firm injury attorneys ♪ ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million ♪ senate at this hour, as they attempt to bypass the republican filibuster. the legislation is about to get -- under any minute minute now. you see chuck schumer addressing his colleagues. eric -- is a >> he has been closely fighting these voting rights. he joins me now. it's important that we first ask about why, after your times a journey general loved democracy. voting re-district staying has been your big focus. >> what i said when i left the department of justice, is that i was going to. i was never gonna leave the work of protecting the right to vote. animated by professional life, and something i've given a substantial amount of time to. i have a book that's coming out in may of next year that talks about the fight that we've had as the republic, to try to make sure everyone has the right to vote. and the battle that ensued. and it seems to me, this is the most important thing to focus on. our democracy is at stake. i'm not being hyperbolic, or an iron missed, or exaggerating. the passing of these bills is critical. the suppression going on is unbelievable. the subversion of the infrastructure of -- it is hard to -- these are things that we should put a stop to. we have to address it. and that's why i thought this is something that we should be focusing on. >> i want to talk, we just talked to mark elias about what was going on with the bills here. i know you are a man of substance. we agree here a lot about the substantive cases. you've worked for the obama administration and have been there in the politics, what strikes me is that the democratic republic really is -- and changing the filibuster to do it. and essentially knowing that they can do this stuff that they don't want to do. that's where we are tonight. and tonight's spotlighting with these two individuals are standing in the light of this. and that is what's tonight is about. unless i am misreading about what's tonight and what's today has been about. >> it is likely that this is not gonna be a good night for democracy. but that does not mean that the battle and tonight. it means that i will be working with mark, and we will be coming with more lawsuits. we'll be trying to come up with ways that we can use state constitution's for -- in north carolina, to see more transparency. and see what we can do with an underlying component. to get involved in this fight. this is the loss of a battle. it is not necessarily the loss of a lore. this fight will go on. this fight will go on. this fight for our democracy will continue. >> why do you think joe manchin and kristen sinema's relationship to the democratic party and the democratic caucuses will be? >> that's an interesting question. this is something that is core to the democratic party. it is the fight for voter protection. it is something that is animated this party for decades. this is something that is a clear differentiator between the democratic republic and the republican one. this is the same direction of this nation. they are putting themselves outside the -- of the democratic party in that regard. what's the relationship to the party will be going forward, we will have to see. i know as a democrat, i am extremely disappointed in the positions that they have taken, especially given that that senator schumer keeping -- apparently that is not even enough for them. given what's at stake here, the part of our democracy and the slight change whether the filibuster will be in the senate, would be enough to bring them forward. >> there's some other breaking news tonight about the supreme court and the trump administration. supreme court moving quite expeditiously to allow those documents to be transmitted to the national archives, to the committee rejecting the claims of executive privilege. how significant is of that and the -- part of the effort that you're talking about, and safeguarding to american democracy. >> i see it on all cylinders. i am heartened by the pace that they are now proceeding. they are aided by the court's decision today, did not take much time for them to get to which i think is an appropriate position. it's a back of the hand to the administration's claims from the trump legal team. a paragraph and a half, saying that the claims made by the trump -- rightfully done. the fact that the committee will now access to these -- is now extremely significant. mostly because the documents themselves will be available, or the guy to be -- re-question witnesses that they have spoken to. this is a very critical and important decision. >> we've got more news about the various interlocking parts about the department of justice's case about -- or in a more recent case last week, the seditious conspiracy alleged by the department to stop the transfer of power. you are a prudent enough individual that you are not going to stand on the throes of the attorney general, but i will just ask, is it -- people that look at the facts surrounding donald trump and say it looks like there is some criminal exposure here to stop the peaceful transfer of power. are they crazy or not? >> now. i think that the use of these suspicious conspiracy charge is something that -- that is something that the department of justice will be looking at a whole line of people. not just people on the senate, but people that were not there. the speech that he gave on january 6th, has two words -- i think that is really important. seditious conspiracy at any level is an indication that the justice department is looking at anybody who might be connected to what happened in the insurrection on january the 6th. >> eric holder, former attorney general, thank you very much. i should know before you go that the closure ole is going on. it's expected to fail. thank you very much mr. holder. >> coming up president biden holds a press conference he, he takes a victory lap of his wins, he calls that republicans, gives a really chilly warning about the situation in the ukraine. i will explain going ahead. ukraine. ukraine. i will his grilling game? on point. and his a1c? ron is on it. with the once-daily pill, jardiance. jardiance not only lowers a1c... sk of cardiovascular death for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease. and jardiance may help you lose some weight. jardiance may cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function, and genital yeast or urinary tract infections. a rare life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction, and don't take it if you're on dialysis. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. a once-daily pill that goes beyond lowering a1c? on it with jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance. i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance on it with jardiance. 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's time for sleep number's january sale 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. and now, save $1,000 on the sleep number 360 special edition smart bed, queen now $1,999. more than 200 correspondents plus, 0% interest for 24 months on all smart beds. only for a limited time. are crowded in the chamber, moving to 100 of correspondents are crowded in as the president strides the chamber, to talk to the as the press, and the president will cameras address the press and the. but cameras. >> i see we are trying >> i see we're trying a new a new experiment experiment this morning, i hope it does, i hope it doesn't prove to be not prove a disturbing to be influence. >> a disturbing -- >> today's today is the 67th anniversary of the first ever 67th anniversary of televised presidential the news conference. it first televised news conference. happened on january 19th, 1955. president dwight eisenhower answer reporters questions. presidents news conference filled four newsreel for the first time. today, president biden marked one year in office by holding his tenth press conference. it ended up being the longest in presidential history. it lasted for one hour and 51 minutes. biden began with a vigorous defense of all his administration has achieved, in his first year. >> we went from 200 people to being vaccinated, to 210 million americans being vaccinated. we created 6 million new jobs. more jobs in one year than any time before. unemployment dropped to 3.9%. child poverty dropped by nearly 40%. the biggest drop in american history. >> while biden stood for his accomplishments, he admitted that there are things that he did differently, including doing more covid testing. he also pointed out that he's gotten no help from across the aisle, that is largely, he says, because of donald trump. >> one thing i haven't been able to do so far, is get my republican friends to get in the game of making things better in this country. think about, this was a republicans for? what are they for? name me one thing that they are for. did you ever think that one man out of office could intimidate an entire party, where they are unwilling to take any vote contrary to what do you think should be taking, for the fear of being defeated in a primary. >> biden also took several questions on the looming russian invasion of ukraine. he was unequivocal in his warnings to russia about the consequences, but also where the warren we're up would mean for the rest of the world. >> if he invades, it hasn't happened since world war ii. it'll be the most consequential thing this happened in the world, in terms of warren peace, since world war ii. >> president is not alone in that incredibly stark assessment of where things stand. there are alarm bells that are going off all over europe, and the world. we've got the exact perfect guest to talk about it, alexander vindman, former director for european affairs one american national security. he joins me next. right now, there is an extremely volatile situation on the border of ukraine. where russia has been amassing troops and tanks for months. secretary of state, anthony blinken, arrived in ukraine where he met with ukrainian president zelensky. president biden is warning russian president, vladimir putin, a severe sanctions if he invades. today, he also said he thinks putin will, quote, move in. >> russia will be held accountable if it innovates. it depends on what it does. it's one thing if it's a minor incursion, and we have and up having a fight about what to do and what not to do, but if they actually do with their capable of doing, with the forces amassed on the border, it is going to be a disaster for russia. >> now, that comment, raised all kind of concerns. immediately about the response about minor incursions, from ukrainians. the white house then releases statement, after a press conference, saying, if any russian military forces move across ukrainian border, that's a renewed invasion, and it will be met with a swift, severe and you know the response from the united states and our allies. -- army lieutenant colonel, who's director of european affairs. he was removed from that position by donald trump, after don trump's first impeachment, after he testified about the infamous phone call, where trump tried to extort his counterpart. he wrote a book about his experiences. colonel vindman, who is an expert in russia joins me. lieutenant, let's just start with setting the stage of why we are at this point. it's very clear that putin's had wanted to create a sphere of influence and control, and strategic depth, in what were the former vassal states. and that he has attempted to reconstitute at that in various ways, including crimea. why are we here right now? >> i think we saw this buildup start to occur at the beginning of 2021. it was on the expectation that russia had to act. ukraine was slipping through his fingers. back in 2014, when this confrontation started, when russia lost its military offensive against ukraine, it did so because it's awe country choosing its own destiny, asserting its sovereignty, choosing a path towards european integration, and towards democracy. really, this is a continuing enterprise and a lot of ways. he thought he may have achieved what he wanted with the phil to ukraine snapping up 7% of the country, millions of people. it turns out he was wrong. the ukrainians were successful -- those wounds, and continuing to make progress with democracy, growing the economy. the question is, why now? it's mainly because a sense of opportunity. a sense of weakness within the united states, i have every reason to believe that if we had not had an insurrection on january 6th, president trump would not -- because of president trump, president putin would not believe there was an opportunity, aura -- the hyper polarization that trump continues to nourish in the united states helps. he has major talking heads on fox news, like tucker carlson. people pandering to his interests, pandering toward drawing false equivalency's to the u.s. and russia. the people fan boeing over authoritarianism. then, there is a perception of vulnerabilities between u.s. in europe. he perceives they exist, he sees that is only going to get harder to act in the future. the time to act is now. this is likely to be as president biden put it, the largest offensive in europe, since world war ii. it's going to be enormously impactful on geopolitics. frankly, we should be doing everything in our power to avoid this from happening. when those four shots are fired, we don't have a good idea of how things are going to unfold. it's better to prevent, and to do everything to avoid this catastrophic outcome, rather than deal with the consequences. >> i am not an expert, but i couldn't agree more. massive land were encouraging -- that. horrible historical antecedents. i guess the question is, what's the? -- russia is a nuclear power, the u.s. is not, and nato is not going to send ground troops into the eastern ukraine to fight russian soldiers. blinken is in the region seeking a diplomatic offering. what is the off ramp? >> it's not that easy to take pieces off of their table, right now. frankly, it's one of the places where this administration fell short. they thought that maybe this was diplomatic coercion. they thought the scale of this might be smaller, more limited, or something that doesn't drag the u.s. into another major confrontation in europe. i think, it's just not going to be that simple. we should be doing a lot more, and we shouldn't be just be considering a diplomatic track. there's also a pressure track that makes a lot of sense. we have very anxious allies along ukraine's western border. those allies are gonna want some insurances that mean something. we have allies that have already said they're ready to pony up weapons and support to ukraine. that already is some seepage to nato not being involved, at least bilaterally, or unilaterally. they are going to make some commitments to ukraine, because of their own national security interest. we should be doing more. we should be positioning -- we talk about reactionary measures, positioning troops in europe after an escalation, that is the wrong way to look at it. we should be doing things now. think about it logically, right now, we don't have a worry yet. if we position troops in europe, needed -- will protect nato interests. how much more benign does that seem? positioning many troops in eastern europe, when shots are fired, one there is russian blood being spilled. with regards to arming you the ukrainians, how much more sense would it make to do it now, to prevent, rather than to do this after shots are fired? i've got a very long piece going on foreign affairs, that really eliminates any wishful thinking about how limited this might be, or how the u.s. might be able to navigate escalating to bilateral conflict. senator menendez proposed a very potent, wide-ranging bill, that is another powerful diplomatic tool to bring to their -- we just need to pull out all the stops to do the best that we can to avoid this, to safeguard u.s. national security interests. >> all right, lieutenant colonel alexander vindman. your briefing when you are at the council -- i know, it's been one that you very followed very closely. thank you very much, appreciated. >> thank you. >> that is all in for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now. >> thank you very much, all explain. i know this does look a little different. i am at my home studio, in all of its cabin eke glory. there have been times in the past when i have appeared for my home studio, with no notice, because something was desperately wrong. this is not one of those times. nothing is really wrong. there is nothing serious going on, we've just been beset with technical gremlins, a little bit. something about the internet not working in an ice storm. i don't know, it's definitely gremlins. this is always been a backup plan, and cases studio goes kaput. tonight it did, so here we are. again, nothing to worry about. other than the fact nothing to . other than the fac nothing the matter with it except that my lighting makes my head look like richard nixon or the great pumpkin. as you know, president biden held a conference on the start of the second year in office he took questions for almost a at his press conference he warned president putin he'll regret the consequences, but provocatively biden said he thinks putin will