approach. >> i think there is widespread understanding that what we have done for the last six months has failed, from a policy point of view, it has failed politically. we need to change course. we need to have the courage to take on the republicans and let manchin and sinema decide which side they are on. meantime, a glimmer of hope on the pandemic front. dr. fauci saying he's confident omicron's peak is in sight. >> but if the pattern follows the trend that we're seeing in other places such as the northeast, i believe that you will start to see a turnaround throughout the entire country. we don't want to get overconfident, but they look like they're going in the right direction right now. and as tensions between russia and ukraine intensify, the united kingdom is accusing vladimir putin of plotting to install a pro moscow leader in ukraine. joining us right now, nbc's josh lederman at the white house. raf sanchez joins us from london. guys, welcome to you both. josh, where do things stand with russia at this hour from washington's perspective? >> reporter: the white house and the biden administration are certainly on high alert over the weekend, alex, saying a russian incursion into ukraine could really happen at any point in time. we heard this morning from secretary of state antony blinken who of course has been leading u.s. negotiations with russia over the last week or so. he aavoided getting into too many details about this new british intelligence which you'll hear about in a minute from raf sanchez suggesting that russia might be plotting to install a pro-russian leader in ukraine. but blinken saying that they have been warning for a long time about just this type of russian plotting, as well as other tricks in russia's playbook, as he described it, that could include trying to create some kind of false flag attack on russia to be used as a predication for russia to then mount some type of, quote, unquote, defensive response to that into ukraine. we also heard blinken defending the biden administration after president biden faced a lot of criticism for his comments in that news conference that seemed to indicate that a minor incursion to ukraine by russia wouldn't trigger the same kind of overwhelming response from the u.s. and its allies that president biden has long been warning. take a listen to what blinken said about that. >> if a single additional russian force goes into ukraine in an aggressive way, as i said, that would trigger a swift, a severe, and a united response from us and from europe. again, across the board. we're prepared with europe for a swift and calibrated and great united response. we're looking at every single scenario, preparing for every single one. >> reporter: you hear blinken there saying a single russian force going further into ukraine would trigger that response. that's the most specific the biden administration has been so far on that. we also know that the state department is watching very closely as they try to make a decision about whether it's time to order a to order nonessential u.s. diplomats in kiev to leave given the possibility of violence and potential incursion by russia. blinken says they're monitoring that hour by hour. they have not given that order yet but are certainly prepared to do it if it seems like it needs to be done to protect the safety of our personnel who are overseas, alex. >> i've got to tell you, that would come as a big, big concern to those still living in ukraine and kiev, all those ukrainian citizens, if they see the americans hightailing it out of there, that's concerning. but we understand they may need to do it. . let's go to you, raf sanchez, and what you're hearing about this alleged coup attempt. >> reporter: alex, the british government doing something pretty unusual overnight, making public what would normally be high school sensitive foreign intelligence material. and the reason they've done that appears to be trying to show russia that the western powers have eyes on this alleged coup attempt, and to try to deter them from going ahead with it. the british foreign secretary, liz truss, tweeting overnight, we will not tolerate a kremlin plot to install pro-russian leadership in the ukraine. the kremlin knows a military incursion would be a massive strategic mistake and the uk and our partners would impose a severe cost on russia. now, the specific allegation here from the uk is the kremlin is looking to topple the democratically-elected president of ukraine and replace him possibly with a pro-russian ukrainian oligarch. that oligarch has laughed off that claim today. the kremlin calling this claim by the uk government disinformation, saying it's not true. secretary of state blinken was asked about this earlier today. as josh said, he didn't get into a lot of details but he said russia certainly has a track record of interfering in ukrainian politics, trying to install its people in positions of power. i want you to take a listen to what he had to say about that? >> we've been concerned and have been warning about exactly these kind of tactics for weeks. and we've talked about that publicly, that russia would try to in some way topple or replace the government. this is very much part of the russian playbook. it's important that people look at the whole range of things that russia could and may be preparing to do in ukraine. >> reporter: now, what the u.s. really wants to do is show moscow that they are facing a united front against them if they do proceed into ukraine. the u.s., nato allies, other countries acting together. that front, alex, not as united as the white house might want it to be. the uk and the u.s. have been spending missiles and other equipment to ukrainians to help defend themselves in the event of an invasion but germany is saying it does not believe sending arms to ukraine is the right thing to do. last night the u.s. navy chief was forced to resign after saying vladimir putin doesn't get the respect from the west he may deserve. >> okay. dissension in those ranks, it would appear. thank you very much, raf sanchez. let's bring in peter baker, chief white house correspondent for "the new york times." peter, big welcome to you. you are a moscow bureau chief for some years and you literally wrote the book on vladimir putin. so why do you think british intelligence released this publicly? why not go directly to russia privately and say, we know you're doing this, don't mess with us? >> well, i think as raf just said, basically, they're trying to get ahead of the russians rather than let the russians set the agenda here. by putting this out in advance, just like the american government a few weeks ago put out the idea that there are saboteurs being sent by russia into eastern ukraine, they're trying to make clear to the broader public that when they see something happen, to discredit it, to understand that this is not some sort of ukrainian internal crisis, that it would be an externally mounted coup. and i think there's some deterrent feeling, that if they expose it in advance, they're embarrassing russia or at least putting them on the defensive to the point where maybe they won't follow through. it does sort of speak to the complicated nature of where we're at. yes, there are 100,000 russian troops on the border, more potentially on the way. but there are all sort of things that russia could do short of that to cause instability in ukraine, whether it could be, you know, more of an incursion in eastern ukraine where they've already been funding and arming separatists, whether it could be a coup like the british are talking about, some sort of predicate to give me an excuse to intervene in a more fulsome way. that's what you're hearing from the west right now, that they're looking for an excuse, some sort of made-up predicate, provocation is the word russians would generally use, to justify some sort of action. >> i'm trying to figure out how this person, a person, would be installed. would it only be as a result of an invasion, a war? is there any other way that if this is all true, which by the way russia is saying this is disinformation, if this is true, how would that person actually make it into the top seat of government? >> well, look, you remember, ukraine of course is a country divided to some extent between people who speak ukrainian and consider themselves to be ukrainian and a minority that still considers themselves to be russians, that speak russian at their primary language. so there are people in ukraine who are very sympathetic to moscow, what would support, you know, a more russian-oriented leadership there. remember, it was only 2014 that president yanakovich, who was aligned with russia, was forced out. there are people, there are forces in ukraine that would welcome that. if the russians help them out with some sort of special operation, they could use that as a predicate to invite in russian troops. russians were, quote, invited into hungary during the cold war when the soviets came in to put down dissent. the british say the russians are looking for some reason to create a, quote, legal, unquote, predicate for more intensive intervention there, create a state on their border that would be friendly to them, that would be loyal to them, that would be part of the moscow orbit again. >> you and raf both mentioning that which the united states did, that proceeded the british intelligence, saying look, this is what we know, there could be a warning about a false flag operation. you were there in the white house, covering it in 2014, joe biden was there as well. russia invaded and seized crimea that year. how do you compare the white house response then versus now? >> that's a good comparison. look what they did in crimea. what they did was sent in these people who were in sort of not in uniform to stir up this pro-russian, you know, sentiment in crimea and then basically took over the peninsula look at by saying, oh, we had nothing to do with it, that's all home-grown. later they admitted of course that it wasn't. that's why you're seeing people talk about that now because they're in the history of this. i think president biden is, you know, following president obama's playbook to some extent, threatening sanctions while at the same time pursuing diplomacy. there's a concern among some people that he's not being hard enough, not being firm enough. certainly the comment about a limited incursion didn't help in that regard. they're trying to be aligned with the europeans, one of the most important things for this white house as it was for the obama white house is to be in lockstep with the europeans so russia can't drive a wedge between us and our allies. president biden knows there is some disagreement among the alliance, the navy chief being fired last night being an indication that have. stay in touch, stay aligned with the allies, be on one page. >> we have the biden administration that's working on a diplomatic off-ramp, if you will. but what you know about vladimir putin, do you realistically expect him to turn back? we know how much he appreciates being seen as a strongman, right? he's had this big show of mobilizing more than 100,000 troops. is he just going to say, yeah, we were just hanging out, and turn around? >> well, it's a good question, right, what is something he can do short of an invasion that will make him feel like he got what he wanted out of this. look, for one thing he's already gotten something he wanted, which is the world's attention, everybody is paying attention to russia right now. one of the things you've seen over the 22 years or so that he's been in power is this desire to be treated with respect as if it were the old soviet union days, that we did not treat them with respect after the end of the cold war, that russian greatness was in question and he's now forced the world to pay attention to him and to respect, in effect, russia's power and might. there is a potential that he could do something now that she's shown that again, now that he's gotten the world's attention again, he can walk back and say, okay, we've gotten something to show for it. but you're right, you don't usually put 100,000 troops on the border of another country unless you're planning to using them. i don't know what the united states or europe can do to deter that. he has already factored it into his equation. that's the real question, what is his end game here? not only do americans and europeans not know, russians don't know either. >> i have one question for you, will you come see me again on sunday? i hope so. thank you, peter, i appreciate your time. a former trump official talking all about the president's actions about january 6th and the days leading up to that day. she had no qualms at all about talking to the january 6th committee. former white house communications director stephanie grisham, next. grisham. [bacon sizzles] ♪ [electronic music plays] ♪ woo! fries or salad? [bacon sizzles] ♪ [electronic music plsalad! good choice! it is. so is screening for colon cancer. when caught in early stages, it's more treatable. hey, cologuard! hi, i'm noninvasive and i detect altered dna in your stool to find 92% of colon cancers even in early stages. early stages. it's for people 45 plus at average risk for colon cancer, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider if cologuard is right for you. (all) to screening! don't settle for products that give you a sort-of white smile. try crest whitening emulsions... ...for 100% whiter teeth. its highly active peroxide droplets... ...swipe on in seconds. better. faster. 100% whiter teeth. shop crestwhitesmile.com. new vicks convenience pack. dayquil severe for you... and daily vicks super c for me. vicks super c is a daily supplement with vitamin c and b vitamins to help energize and replenish. dayquil severe is a max strength daytime, coughing, power through your day, medicine. new from vicks. our new nbc poll out today reveals how americans feel about our democracy more than a year after the attack on the capitol. that poll finds 76% believe our democracy is threatened. and seven in ten say they believe the nation cannot come together. this comes as the january 6th committee now has over 700 pages of documents from donald trump. and the committee asked his daughter ivanka for cooperation. nbc's julie tsirkin is on capitol hill for us. julie, welcome on this sunday. what are you hearing about ivanka today? >> reporter: chairman bennie thompson spoke about her this morning and reminded us how expansive their investigation has been. remember, they started with a public hearing last december when they heard emotional testimony from the officers on january 6th. next they moved into that investigation phase that they're still in now. you mentioned those 700 pages of documents. well, they faced obstruction after obstruction from former president trump and his allies, calling the investigation delegitimate, trying to delegitimize the investigation and paint it as solely partisan. those 700 pages, of course, we know some of those at least was that unsigned executive order reported on by politico that instructed our military to go and seize voting machines around the country. now, bennie thompson, as i mentioned, was on "cbs this morning." he said the committee still plans to move into a public phase of their examination this spring. he expanded on why they want to hear from ivanka trump, the committee's latest move. take a listen. >> obviously ivanka trump was a major adviser to the president all along, there are a number of items attributed to what she's been saying. so we're asking her to come in voluntarily and give us the benefit of what she knows. >> will she? >> well, we'll wait and see. february 3rd, and we'll go after that. >> reporter: the committee giving her some time to respond there. obviously this is not a subpoena, which suggests the committee believes they may be able to get ivanka trump, the former president's daughter and special adviser, to cooperate voluntarily. they want to hear from her because she was privy to a lot of conversations based on their investigation and things they know so far. she may have pressured and tried to convince her dad to call off the riot at the capitol on january 6th. she was also allegedly in that oval office meeting on that day as he was trying to pressure former vice president pence to overturn the election to prevent joe biden from ever seeing the white house. alex? >> okay, julie tsirkin, thank you so much from capitol hill. joining me right now is stephanie grisham, former white house press secretary and communications director for president trump. also chief of staff to first lady melania trump. she's also the author of "i'll take your questions now: what i saw at the trump white house." stephanie, big welcome you to, i'm awfully glad to have you here. >> thank you so much. >> let's play part of an interview, it happened just this morning, with elissa farrah griffin, who described the shape of things to come. here it is. >> i think you're going to see the anatomy of the big lie begin to unfold, when you see more text messages come out of people around trump who knew the election fraud was a total myth, they were simply humoring him and privately saying, yeah, we can't keep spreading this craziness. i think it chips away at trump's credibility and i also think it really gets to him. >> what's your take on what she said? >> i could not agree with elisa more. i think exactly what she said is correct. this is how the trump white house worked. we would talk to each other, go around him, text each other, call each other, trying to get him to stop some of his many antics. i think that as that becomes more obvious, as elissa said, it's going to really break things down, especially when you see people like sean hannity or the last press secretary, kaylee, conspiring against him. you see mark meadows saying, i love this plan, i love that plan, which is clearly a plan the president wouldn't have wanted. so i couldn't agree with elisa more. >> can you give me more specifics on who the "we" would be in those group texts? otherwise have characterized it as, this is crazy, there's no way we want to do what donald trump wants us to do. >> broadly speaking, senior staff. i have to say "broadly" because there were so many senior staff. it was constantly a rolling list of people. so, you know, the chief of staff at the time, whoever that may have been, whether it was rei nreince or general kelly or mark meadows. you've got ivanka, jared, kellyanne, we would think of ways to gently walk things back or go around the president so we could try to help not have things be so chaotic. >> was that just weird for you? you were working in the white house. was it like you were having to deal with an alternative reality, having to humor the president? >> you know, that is actually a great question. i have never been asked that. but "no" is my quick answer, because i had been around it for so long, you get so entrenched in it and it just becomes a way of living. so at the time, no, this was just how we did things. now that i've stepped back, certainly, and i've kind of gotten to real life, yes, it's crazy to think about. but at the time, no, this is just how things operated and you went about it every day. you had so many fires to put out, i don't think we could stop and think a lot of times. >> so we know you recently cooperated with the january 6th committee. and according to "the guardian" you told the select committee that trump hosted secret meetings in the white house residence in those days before january 6th. and look, i know there are some things you can't say, but can you at least confirm this? is there anything you can tell us about what you told the committee, what you knew, what you did see? >> sure. i talked broadly, i spoke to the committee about how things worked behind the scenes. in my role as chief of staff to melania trump, i was often alerted, when any meetings would take place in the residence so i could let her know there would be people in her home. now, when mark meadows came, that flow of information stopped. so i would get that information from other areas, say the ushers' office who would be responsible for waiving and escorting people into the residence. i heard about many of the meetings taking place post-election but pre-january-6th at the residence oftentimes from them. >> let me pick up on that, because it's my understanding based on testimony that we believe you gave that the white house chief of staff, mark meadows, who is the one who scheduled these meetings off the books, they were private, off the books, so he knew they were happening. of course the 1/6 committee has tried to get answers from him and he has stonewalled them at this point. the white house usher is not a name that is publicly out there so much. this is timothy harleff. tell me who timothy harleff is, beyond knowing that i believe he was close to melania trump for a long time. >> it's a very respected role that has to be very discreet in a lot of ways. they were very close, just by essence of that role. he came from trump org, i was one of the ones to interview with him. he worked at the trump hotel before he was hired on as chief usher. he did a great job, he was very discreet for that family, i will say that. so anything going through, as i said, the usher's office, anything with the residence, is what he would be in control of. >> you're totally clear on this. i just want to ask one question, though. so the usher is going to have to literally wave somebody through, right? somebody comes in, they have to pass through the usher who says go on upstairs to the residence. >> correct. so anybody could have technically waved a person through. let's just say for the sake of this conversation, mark meadows waved somebody in. the usher, though, would usually greet them and take them upstairs to the residence. you don't just walk into the residence without an escort. >> so given your insight, and you give timothy harleff's name to the committee, was it your impression they were aware of him or did you think they were giving them information that, okay, here's another avenue you can pursue? >> i couldn't get a read on that, to be honest with you. i don't know what they knew and what they didn't. i think that was probably by design. so i have no idea. >> okay. we do know that the committee is getting white house documents now from the national archives, and that's because the supreme court refused to side with donald trump and block their release. these documents, do you think they would include things like activity logs, who is coming and going, or even notes that would be taken from these secret meetings in the residence? >> i hope so. i don't know that there would be notes taken up in the residence. again, i'm not sure, you know, how those meetings happened. so i don't know about notes there. but certainly visitors' logs i would hope would be released. and certainly on january 6th, you've got to always remember that when the president makes a movement, whether it's in the white house or outside of the white house, there are documents put together to show literally, minute by minute, where he's walking, who is greeting him, how long he's supposed to stand there, who will be introducing him. so with january 6th, i think there are probably documents like that that could be helpful. and i hope that those are in the batches of things that were released. >> so you know that the committee has asked ivanka trump for a voluntary interview. give me a sense how close an adviser she was to her father and how significant any testimony from her could potentially be. >> well, i think just as his daughter, it would be very, very significant. but i think what's so important is that she was also a senior adviser, as was jared. and so they signed up for that, they signed up to work in the white house as senior advisers. they didn't take a paycheck, i know, but i think because of that, because they were serving the country in that capacity, it's their duty, or her duty right now, to talk to the committee. it would be absolutely huge because she, as we know, was in the oval office having meetings with the president and also went in there a couple of things to try to tell him to, you know, speak to people and have them leave the capitol and be peaceful. she was often -- i've always said this, she was often kind of the voice of reason, she and melania both, to be honest. so i think hearing from her would be significant. but i don't think that will ever, ever happen. i think she, just like everybody else, will stonewall and push this off. i think they're all hoping they can push this off until 2022 and they're hoping republicans will take over and the whole thing will be disbanded. >> okay. so you think that a voluntary interview won't happen and if anything would happen, it may have to take other steps to get her to talk to the 1/6 committee. how about you, though? because you resigned on january 6th from the trump administration. >> yes. >> you were melania's chief of staff on that day. why did you leave? was there a last straw for you? was it witnessing that day? or had you already said, this is going to be the day i leave, january 6th? >> no, i mean, i write about this in my book, i tried to leave many, many times, if i'm being honest, in the last probably eight months to a year of the white house. but that day was difficult for me because, as i said, you know, in the trump white house, we were putting out fires every day. nothing seemed crazy. but that day, i just had a really bad feeling. and watching what was happening on tv and watching all the trump flags and the maga hats and all of his supporters doing what they were doing, i couldn't handle it. and i would he to mrs. trump, i sent her a text and said, do you want to put some kind of a tweet out saying, be peaceful, that everybody has a right to speak their mind and be peaceful? and she wrote back the word "no," just "no." and that moment is when i couldn't, i resigned. i sat for a minute and then i sent an email, i resign. i couldn't be a part of it. i used to tell myself because i worked for her, i was a little bit better and that's why it was okay to say. but when she wouldn't do anything on that horrible day, i couldn't stand there and be there anymore. >> so you just painted a picture of watching television and seeing the maga hats and the trump flags. i'm curious, how many televisions, as you made your way through the white house, had the insurrection under way, live, being broadcast on those televisions, and what was the reaction of white house staffers? were they agape, were they like, oh, my goodness? or were they just saying, oh, it's fake news? how did people react to it? >> i don't know the answer to that. the east wing was telecommuting because of covid at the time. i was at home watching tv. mrs. trump was in the residence and having new carpet photographed. i also knew there would be a tv on up there, so i knew she was aware of what was going on. i heard stories, as we all have, of what was going on in the dining room off of the oval office, and that was that the president was watching tv and rewinding it and commenting about how they're fighters and they're very tough. but i was at home, so i was alone watching. >> i appreciate the candor with that. last question, stephanie. donald trump, as you know, has been teasing the potential of a 2024 white house run. do you expect he will actually do it and if so, what kind of a threat would a second donald trump term pose? >> i don't know. i thought at first there was no way he was going to run. then i've changed my mind to think he was going to run. knowing the man like do i, it's weird for me to not know. i believe he's waiting to see what happens in the '22 midterms. i think that if a lot of his more radical candidates that he's backing get into congress, he'll run, because he'll feel empowered to do so. i do believe that if he is our next president, again, all the guardrails will be off. he won't have to worry about running for reelection. when i was in the trump white house, there was a common saying that senior staff would say, jared kushner was one of them, that's a second term project, meaning we're going to wait and do the more crazy, draconian things until the second term. i also believe wholeheartedly it was a revenge tour. anybody and everybody who spoke out against him, he'll be speaking revenge against. i don't think he'll be looking at it as what's best for our country anymore, it will be what's best for him and how do i get back at all the people who dared to defy me. >> i really appreciate the honesty from you in this interview, it can't be easy. you've taken my questions, and you've got that book, "i'll take your questions now." thank you for taking the questions. i'll look forward to seeing you again with more insights. meantime, protesters against vaccine mandates have descended on washington for a march. who are these people? some of the names are very familiar. we'll take you to dc to find out, next. to dc to find to dc to find out, next.♪ ♪sure would help a lot ♪ ♪wouldn't you like to get away? ♪ ♪ ♪ sometimes you want to go ♪ ♪where everybody knows your name ♪ ♪ ♪and they're always glad you came ♪ ♪♪ three times the electorlytes and half the sugar. ♪♪ pedialyte powder packs. feel better fast. some breaking news, as we bring you live pictures of thousands of protesters rallying in washington, dc to oppose vaccine mandates. anti-vaxxer robert f. kennedy jr. organized that event. nbc's gary grumbach is there live. what are you seeing, gary? >> reporter: hey, alex, we're seeing thousands of people here today. we talked to them throughout the morning. they're from across the country. we talked to people from south carolina to minnesota to new york and back here to washington, dc. and they're saying the same thing, we've talked to people who are vaccinated, we've talked to people who unvaccinated, people who are anti-vaxx and people who are just antimandate. they all have the same message, they don't believe government should be forcing vaccinations upon people or requiring vaccinations for things like schooling and for things like jobs or to go into a restaurant. it's been a fascinating morning. as you mentioned, robert f. kennedy jr. is one of the speakers that will be here today, there's about 30 of them expected to get under way here shortly. we talked to some folks about why they're here. >> i'm here because i'm really passionate about freedoms. i think our freedoms are starting to erode. and it's really sad to see that people are forced to take a vaccine in order to go to college, to maintain a job, to feed their families. and it's not right. it's un-american. it's against the constitution. and, uh, we're here with a lot of other people trying to send a message to, uh, the government that we are not going to stand for this and as long as we have breath, we will not stand for this. >> reporter: now, there are nine states and washington, dc that still have indoor mask mandates. and of course this is happening here in washington, dc. if any of these folks are hungry or want to get a drink after this, they have to show their vaccination and wear a mask to go into restaurants here in dc, alex. >> oh, my gosh, i had not thought of that. interesting. thank you for sharing that point as well, gary grumbach, appreciate that. coming up next, the so-called green bay sweep and the trump administration officials behind the plot to steal vice president biden, now president biden's victory. and they're showing absolutely no shame at all. and they're showing absolutely and they're showing absolutely no shame at all. and savings like that follow you everywhere. ♪ now, save more with allstate. ♪ because better protection costs a whole lot less. you're in good hands with allstate. call a local agent or 1-888-allstate for a quote today. hi, my name is cherrie. i'm 76 and i livet on the oregon coast. my husband, sam, we've been married 53 years. we love to walk on the beach. i have two daughters and then two granddaughters. i noticed that memories were not there like they were when i was much younger. since taking prevagen, my memory has gotten better and it's like the puzzle pieces have all been [click] put together. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. now to an explosive new interview with three key witnesses in the january 6th investigation. my colleague, msnbc chief legal analyst ari melber, sat down with former assistant to donald trump peter navarro, former trump lawyer boris epshteyn, and dustin stockton, during which epshteyn admitted he was part of an effort to prop up fraudulent trump electors in key states. >> there's also been reporting about the attempt to seat fraudulent electors. is that something you ever worked on or would support, for example in michigan? >> that's so funny. not fraudulent electors, ari, it's alternative electors. yes, i was part of the process to see that alternative electors would be successful. everything was done under the rules and under the leadership of rudy giuliani. >> joining me now, a democratic strategist and national director of the engagement campaign. susan del percio and david jolly. welcome to all of you. let's get right into this. susan, you first with your reaction to this idea that all of this was completely legal, according to rudy giuliani. >> well, i think we've seen what kind of attorney rudy giuliani has turned out to be. he's facing multiple legal investigations by doj. and when you listen to boris talk about that, let's not forget that michigan has referred their case of electors, that alternate slate, to doj because it was fraudulent, because they were going about this illegally. so what i notice about the interview with especially boris and peter navarro, were how -- just how much they want to continue to spread the lie, perhaps to protect themselves from legal prosecution down the road. but boy, are they just going in full hook, line, and sinker. >> and picking up on that, let's take a listen to how these witnesses described what they wanted to have happen on january 6th. here it is. >> the ellipse rally was supposed to be like the opening argument, if you will. they were supposed to present hard evidence. there was kind of the hook. and then inside the capitol, when the split happened, the green bay sweep started and the objections started. there was supposed to be more evidence presented. >> that's what the green bay sweep was all about. all mike pence was supposed to do on capitol hill that day was -- >> and peter, we've spoken about the pence piece. >> david, it is striking how casually they lay out a plan to overturn an election but then are still surprised that it turned into a violent insurrection. >> yeah, alex, "striking" is the right word. it's easy to dismiss a lot of these actors as kind of hapless conspirators incapable of pulling something like this off. but what we're learning is this was actually an intelligent, sophisticated, legally informed attempt to undo an election and keep in power the person that lost. that is the type of behavior we do see in authoritarian states and military states. and the scary thing is how close they came to pulling this off. and i think that should inform america's opinion going into 2024 should donald trump run. what we are seeing through this evidence is as a result of the actions and leadership of one man, donald trump, to try to hold on to power at any cost. that is not how a democracy or republic works. that is the fear that the american people should take from this new evidence. >> let's listen to something else peter navarro had to say. >> i ran the mall that day. it's all in my "in trump time" book. i saw nothing but peaceful people walking to the capitol. i did not personally observe storming the gates there. >> you know, it feels as though people like navarro and epshteyn, they're living this alternate reality, still pushing the lie that donald trump won. how is this still going on in 2022? >> it's mind-boggling. he was strategic saying he did not run to the capitol after the insurrection happened. he could have been there that morning, because they were just walking around. what he's not talking about is what happened after the rally. we had dustin, the organizer of the rally, saying, you know, i realize in hindsight basically i was used as a pawn, i was fed all the this information and then it did turn violent and no one said anything about it. and so this interview, i've got to give it to ari, he did a really good job of failing peter and boris. peter and boris kept saying what his supporters repeat, that it was about election fraud and integrity, and people are believing this even though the election was certified, even though people like dustin are realizing, whoa, they had it wrong and i wouldn't even vote for donald trump again if i had the opportunity. >> i want to pick right up on that. let's play that sound bite from dustin stockton, that he doesn't think he can support donald trump again. here it is. >> would you ever vote for him again? >> i don't think i would -- i would find it very, very difficult to support donald trump. especially you look at -- since i've had an opportunity to go back and look back and really reflect upon a lot of what i call warning signs that i excused or overlooked. i certainly would caution anyone against going to work for the trump campaign. >> and you know, susan, that comes on the heels of the conversation i had with stephanie grisham. but this is a guy, this is someone who organized that rally. what do you make of that? of both the comments, if you heard stephanie's interview as well. >> well, it seems like those were two people who got wrapped up into the organization and being surrounded by power and having influence, and i do understand how that happens. i've seen it happen among people i know. and it's disheartening. but they buy into it and at whatever point it takes, whether in stephanie's case on january 6th, or this guy's case looking backwards, you hit a point, you hit a wall where you say, i can't support this anymore. will more and more republicans start seeing that? perhaps. but these are people whose lives have been upended by the trump organization. and have, you know, also probably testified in front of the january 6th committee, which also is another issue, when you start seeing some of the questions and information that is being released. >> part of that information is the new reporting from politico which shows the january 6th committee has obtained that draft executive order that was prepared for then-president-trump that would have directed the then-defense secretary to seize voting machines, appoint a special counsel to probe the election. ultimately trump didn't sign it. but think about how close it came to being exponentially worse. >> i love the statement from the brennan center that said this is literally like a kid scrawling crayons on the wall, they were literally throwing everything that they could at the wall to try to -- the proverbial wall, to be careful with that -- to try to overturn the election and try to sow discord and do what they actually did, which was cause division, create this narrative that people continue to believe the big lie. and so it's mind-boggling but not quite surprising if we look at the trump administration that they were looking for every single loophole in order to keep him in power. >> sure, but david, i guess to you, the fact that we're learning all these details, does it make you more frightened about what could have been? >> it does. >> or what could happen to 2024 to 2028. >> yeah, alex, this was a very sophisticated effort of a president to behave like a dictator, to use the office of the chief executive to empower the military to control an election. that's a dictatorship. and i think the narrative we too casually make is somehow everything spun out of control and turned violent on january 6th. what we're learning is that's not true, that there were multiple elements of that, and the cooperative, peaceful attendees were probably well-attended and behaved that way, but there were components, paramilitary forces, the proud boys and others, threatening the life of the president of the united states while the then-president was trying to get the military to seize ballot boxes. that is a dangerous state and it should inform our judgment in 2024. >> thank you so much for the conversation. the battle against vaccine mandates. mehdi hasan shares his thoughts in the next hour. and mary trump weighs in with her insights. committee or. her cousin weighs in with insights. insights it's a good choice all around, like screening for colon cancer... when caught in early stages it's more treatable. i'm cologuard. i'm noninvasive... and i detect altered dna in your stool to find 92% of colon cancers... even in early stages. early stages. yep. it's for people 45 plus at average risk for colon cancer, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider if cologuard is right for you. we're in. - [female narrator] five billion people lack access to safe surgery. if cologuard is right for you. thousands of children are suffering and dying from treatable causes. for 40 years, mercy ships has deployed floating hospitals to provide the free surgeries these children need. join us. together, we can give children the hope and healing they never thought possible. it's a mission powered by love, made possible by you. give today. we're in a battle with a small number of people that believe they will hold our city hostage with violence. that will not happen. that will not happen. >> the new new york city mayor eric adams at a vigil for two police officers shot in harlem friday night. one officer died. the other remains in critical condition. they were responding to a domestic call when police say a man at that home opened fire. in the three weeks mayor adams has been in office already five nypd officers have been shot. joining me is retired nypd detective and director of the black law enforcement alliance. mark, this has to be difficult for you to hear, this closeness and fraternity you belong to? >> absolutely. imt's a painful time for the members of the nypd and for the city at large. i think the mayor made a point to call for unity and for there to be a united front against the wave of violence that appears to be really taking over the city, and gun violence in particular. i think the real focus at this point is offering the deepest condolences to officer jason rivera and also continued prayers for wilbert mora and his family. >> just to emphasize what you just said with the major crimes in new york city having jumped in these first few weeks, if we look at transit crimes, it's a small sample size. but they're higher by 50%. where does this police shooting in your mind fall in that big picture of rising crime in new york city? >> i think the shootings and the escalating gun violence is really pointing to a larger picture of disorder. as the mayor pointed out earlier during the week, even the appearance of disorder which can be perhaps more influential than actual disorder itself, but obviously there are some issues and elements that need to be addresse. there needs to be a concerted effort, a united front, and there needs to be this collaborative effort not only from the police, prosecutors and judges, but the community has to join in and engage and fight back against this apparent tidal wave of violence and crime that's occurring in the city. >> mark, how does this happen? from your experience as an officer, how do you i guess look at these fights, analyze how they occur, how quickly they might be able to subside? what are the things that could be done, immediate measures officials can take to bring down crime? >> i think it's important for people to understand that, if you pay attention to crime, there will be spikes, there will be downs, there will be ups. it really is a wave of criminality and experience, and professional law enforcement understands that. what you have to do is quickly identify some trends or patterns that contribute to the most of your crime. >> mark, when there's a spike in crime, is it kind of like them trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube? is it more difficult to turn it around? >> it's an expectation that you have an immediate answer to the problem, that you can immediately stop it. sometimes these issues and these problems are much deeper and multifaceted. you talk about education, finances, the economy. so those type of things contribute and feed into a lot of the crime that goes on. there's no immediate fix to it unfortunately. that's the frustrating thing about it. that adds to the perception of just chaos and disorder. >> how do police approach things when their own threat levels are perceived to be higher? do they approach things differently? should they? >> there has to be a level of consistency in your operations as police officers. that's what makes policing a profession and the police officers have to continue to operate in a particular way, even in the midst of tragedy. let's be honest about something. right now the nypd police officers are suffering and going through this ptsd period because they lost one of their own. another one is fighting for his life. that has impacted everyone throughout the department. but you have to continue to stay the course. you have to continue to be committed to effecting positive change in the communities of new york and committed to preserving and protecting human life. that's what makes a police officer's profession a very distinguished and special one. >> marq claxton, thank you. coming up, what the commission wants from ivanka trump? i'll ask mary trump about that. mehdi hasan is going to have conversations about the vaccine mandates. safelite replace. ♪ chase first banking. a debit card and app for kids, and tools for you to teach them good money habits. set account alerts, savings goals, allowances and chores from your chase mobile app. all with no monthly service fee. chase first banking. ♪ limu emu ♪ and doug. we gotta tell people that liberty mutual customizes car insurance so you only pay for what you need, and we gotta do it fast. [limu emu squawks] woo! thirty-four miles per hour! new personal record, limu! [limu emu squawks] he'll be back. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪