in the can't, and 2500 years ago, at and of course our first amendment protects freedom of speech, freedom of the press and, in practice, it gets complicated. as legendary reporter a. j. liebling wrote in the new yorker, freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. pretty smart thing to say. it carried on for decades and because we are now seeing that exact principle play out before us. this active desire to own a press, to control freedom of the press, from some on the right, to control who gets to speak under the guise of free speech. that is what the celebration of billionaire elon musk buying twitter is all about. >> twitter! it's in elon musk's hands, can you believe it? count this one as a victory for free speech. >> he may have saved the town square. >> it could be a pivot point in our history. elon musk believes in free speech. he thinks everyone should be allowed to talk. >> people should be free to say what they want to say without just being shut down, silence then canceled, just because it does not fit with the far-left narrative. >> they want everyone to be free and say what they want to say, even if, as in the case of donald trump, they use the platform to incite a deadly riot, like trump did. before he got kicked off twitter. but okay, fine, everyone enjoy. everyone can say what they want to say and speak out. well, it goes beyond that. listen to this right-wing radio host suggesting muskets should fire employees of twitter. almost all of them, and that because of their views, they should not be able to say what they want. that they should be punished for their beliefs. >> musk needs to come in and fire everyone. i mean, everyone. and twitter has hundreds or perhaps thousands of employees. there have been studies done of the political donations of the people working at twitter. 98. 7% of all donations from the people are working a twitter, went to democrats in the last election cycle. he should review the employee list and figure out who is good and who is bad. and not purely on the basis of politics, but on the basis of performance. many of these employees are already sounding off on elon musk. and they did not have a good excuse to fight him. >> that's interesting. a political purge but also on the basis of marriage. but also if they sound off on elon musk, and that if they speak freely their views, ax them. that is what it is about. right? it shows it is all about control. control over speech platforms, control over institutions. and now those on the other side. we are actually seeing this put into practice. not just the whining or excitations about elon musk, which are frankly weird and parasocial. but in a way that is not just a violation of the first amendment but in a way that is authoritarian. and that is in florida, where this is being made into policy, where republican governor ron desantis recently signed into law a measure passed by the republicans in both houses banning teachers from discussing sexual orientation or gender identity in early elementary classrooms. opponents dubbed it the don't say gay law. it has attracted a lot of criticism, including from florida's large employer, disney, which issued a statement saying that support efforts should be repealed or struck down. that's disney saying, okay, we don't like this law. free speech! well, last week florida republicans retaliated, revoking disney world's special tax status, a privilege disney has held for 55 years, effectively allowing the company to self-govern its 25,000 acre complex. again, they did not even really pretend that there was some other policy reason. this was pure payback. you criticized us, we are taking away your tax status. there is a name for that, it is viewpoint discrimination, an established concept in first amendment jurisprudence. the state cannot treat a person differently because they do not like but they say. a free speech means anything, it means that. let's imagine if the florida legislature passed a law saying that anyone who publicly criticize the don't say gay bill has to pay a special tax penalty or does not qualify for certain tax benefits. obviously, that's unconstitutional. obviously completely inimical to the spirit of american democracy. but that is not really that different from what they did to disney. again, this is law. this isn't people whining on twitter, it's not someone saying, okay, you are banned. and of course, rhonda santas rushed to sign that punishing bill, the one that punishes disney, so that he could on his populist costume and show off his performative anger at corporate america on the corporate media, fox news. >> they pledged themselves to mobilize their considerable corporate resources out of the coffers of this burbank, california-based corporation, to overturn the rights of parents in the state of florida. and effectively commandeer our democratic process. and so that obviously is something that we very much objected to. i just stand with the people. i stand against a lot of media and a lot of big corporations. >> so, this is why he did it, obviously. just, to be clear, with disney said is that they said that they were going to mobilize against the law in a political space. and again, the republicans on the republican right-wing judiciary other ones that gave us citizens united, granting the unfettered ability of private entities to do whatever they want. but in their eager rush to penalize disney, republican legislator apparently did not notice a really big issue. the miami herald reports that an obscure provision and state law says that the state could not do what legislators are doing, revoking the tax status, unless the bond debt was paid off. disney, whoever, noticed and quietly sent a note to its investors to show that it was confident that the legislature 's attempt to dissolve the special attempt to dissolve the taxing -- was not legal. another florida law stipulates that the district was dissolved by default and that therefore the county would assume it's that. therefore, the two counties where the site is located would inherit one billion dollars in bond debt. let's be clear here. at the end of the day, big businesses and corporations, they have a reliable friend in ron desantis. he recently touted how he is protecting the freedom of floridians to do business and drive economic success. that is what makes this also bewildering and disingenuous. i can, it's not about the concentration of corporate power, right? in corporate america. it's not about free speech principles. it is actually just a protection racket. a straight-up protection racket. in a maga conservatism, everything is run with the mindset of mafia bosses. you are either with us or against us. we have the power and we are going to use that power to go after you unless you do it we say. and that is fundamentally offensive to basically, court cherished american ideals. and it is everywhere and on the rise all over the american landscape. my next guest are staff writers for the atlantic. adam serwer's he's an author and mckay coppins is the author of the wilderness. adam, you wrote about, essentially, along the lines of the monologue i laid out. i was saying to our staff -- about the a block in tweet for him. but free speech is code not just for abstract principle but essentially the velvet glove around the iron fist of controlling free speech. >> yeah, i mean, look -- the issue here is that they want social media platforms to be an unfettered vehicle for right wing propaganda. and if elon musk buys twitter. and if the sale goes through, it is his to do what he wants with it. that's how the system works. but the way that you know that they are not concerned about free speech is these demands for a mass political purge of twitters liberal workforce. they are talking about free speech meaning, okay, you don't get punished for what you say, you don't get canceled. and then they are essentially demanding what's in their terms would be a mass cancellation. and so what that tells you is that this is not about free speech. this is about the social media platforms using their power to serve the republican party, much in the same way that the conflict with disney was about disney using its power to serve the republican party. the only problem that the republican party has with corporate power is if that power is not being used to further their ends. they don't fundamentally have a problem with the extent of that power over american life, which is an actual genuine problem. but what they want is for the corporations to do what they want when they say they will do it. as long as they do that, there is actually no problem at all. >> i should just stay here, i have no rooting interest in disney. this is a massive, a moral corporation that is going to throw its weight around as it sort of projects its interests. it's one of those interests are rubbed up against the political project. and, mckay, it's interesting to me. and it is nothing, there was not even really much pretense. i think if the lieutenant governor was like, okay, if they take back what they said, you can have their tax status back. but i saw, again, the usual suspects from the never trump right, saying, hey guys, this is not what we do, this is wrong. but that is a very marginalized faction of the american right at the moment. most of them are like, yes, this is why power is for. >> yeah, you want to follow an interesting debate on this. if so, follow a handful of national review rioters on twitter right now. what you see is a few people who are like, george bush, mitt romney republican saying, okay, wait a second, isn't this government overreach? should we really be infringing on the rights of the private companies? they are still playing the hits from the reagan era. and they are getting shouted down by the way ascendant faction. they are concerned about winning. i think that what you said is so important. and there is very little pretense, even the defenders of this gambit by ron desantis are basically saying that we are not only trying to punish disney, and get them to reverse course. we are also trying to make an example of them. we want to make sure that other can bunnies know that we can punish them. and it's such an interesting reversal from the conservative ideas that were dominant, even just ten years ago. right? not just long ago, republicans and conservatives felt it was their job to protect corporate interests, in part because it was part of their economic project. but also because they could reliably defend large companies -- or depend on large companies to have their backs. they were allied, politically. what has happened is that these cultural politics in the country have changed in the last decade or so in a way that a lot of the people running these companies and working at them have relatively liberal social views. and those are being expressed by these companies. and now the same conservatives, who were big fans of citizens united and big fans of the conservative jurisprudence of the past decade, they are now saying, wait, now we have to go after these companies, because they are not on our side anymore. >> yeah. and the nice thing about a 6 to 3 court -- and we will see it what gets tested here -- is that if you have people that are limber enough, they can come up with justification's to use the first amendment to protect what you want to not protect what you don't want. and that comes back to musk here, adam. you should go -- if you are a tesla employee or not even a tesla employee and you go on to the lot of tesla saying, okay, we should unionize tesla, let's see how long the free speech principle of elon musk will apply. again, all this stuff rubs up against its interests boundaries very quickly. >> i mean, look, the fact is that it does not hurt elon musk if twitter becomes a cesspool. i mean, if he ultimately buys it. but most of these billionaires are not affected by social media being a cesspool. what they might be affected by is by their workforce unionizing. because that puts limits on their ability to spend their money to wield their power and throw their weight around. it is why whenever these guys talk about free speech, that holds talks immediately when it comes to allowing labor organizers in the workplace too unionize their workforces. it is not just a question of speech. it is a question of power. >> in fact, the supreme court recently found that it was essentially a regulatory taking. the law required employees to allow people to meet on company property. i also think,, mckay or paints point about the threat is important as well. this law eliminates the reedy creek improvement district by june 2023. it does allow for the districts to be reestablished, leaving an avenue to renegotiate the future of the deal, involving services like fire protection. it does feel like, okay, hey, that's a great special district you have. there it would be a shame if something happened to it. >> right. and it is funny -- when you raise that question with fans of this bill, for the most part you don't even really get that much pushback. i have raised this with conservative desantis fans. and i have pointed the question to them. one thing i will say is that, yeah, you are right. these companies don't deserve our special protection if they are going to be against us. i also think that what is happening is that some of it is getting dressed up in populist, teddy roosevelt language. there is a certain brand of republican now saying, no, no, no, you don't understand, we are the real populists. we are for the working class and against corporations, we always have been so. and it just so happens we rediscovered our roots at a time when the companies are opposing our political values. >> mckay coppins and adam serwer, thank you -- both sorry, we have to go adam but thank you both. coming, up the brief moment when kevin mccarthy took the threats of his own members seriously. >> tension is too high. the country is too crazy. i do not want to look back and think that we cause something or missed something and that someone got hurt. i don't want to play politics with any of that. >> that's a totally appropriate response that the republican leader had on january six is now coming back to haunt him thanks to his radicalize caucus. that's next. next. (woman) oh. oh! hi there. you're jonathan, right? the 995 plan! yes, from colonial penn. your 995 plan fits my budget just right. excuse me? aren't you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan? yes, from colonial penn. i love your lifetime rate lock. that's what sold me. she thinks you're jonathan, with the 995 plan. -are you? -yes, from colonial penn. we were concerned we couldn't get coverage, but it was easy with the 995 plan. -thank you. -you're welcome. i'm jonathan for colonial penn life insurance company. this guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance plan is our #1 most popular plan. it's loaded with guarantees. if you're age 50 to 85, $9.95 a month buys whole life insurance with guaranteed acceptance. you cannot be turned down for any health reason. there are no health questions and no medical exam. and here's another guarantee you can count on: guaranteed lifetime coverage. your insurance can never be cancelled. just pay your premiums. guaranteed lifetime rate lock. your rate can never increase. pardon me, i'm curious. how can i learn more about this popular 995 plan? it's easy. just call the toll-free number for free information. (soft music) ♪ when it comes to tech, everyone wants the next best thing. now with xfi complete from xfinity, you can get updated wifi technology with the new tech upgrade program. plus, protection from cyber threats at home and now on the go. so staying up to date is easier than ever. you look great by the way. right? unbeatable internet. made to do anything so you can do anything. only xfinity will upgrade your tech after 3 years for a more reliable connection. get that and more with xfi complete. >> the house republican upgrade today. conference is reacting to the leaked audio obtained by the new york times which we played to you at length last night in which minority leader kevin mccarthy of california and other republican leaders criticize members of their own party in the days following the january 6th insurrection. at one point, mccarthy and his second in command, steve scalise of louisiana, who himself is a victim of a politically motivated attack when he was shot in 2017, singled out republican congressman matt gaetz, of florida, for his conduct which they worded could incite further violence. >> i am calling gaetz. i am explaining to him -- i don't know what i'm going to say, but i'm going to have some other people call him too, but the nature of -- what if i'm getting a briefing, and i'm going to get another one from the fbi tomorrow, just to sort this out. >> yes. that's, i mean, it's potentially illegal what he is doing. >> well, he's putting the people in jeopardy. and he doesn't need to be doing this. we saw what people would do in the capital, you know, and these people came prepared with rope, with everything else. >> today, mccarthy addressed those comments in a closed-door meeting with republicans. he reportedly told the conference leaked audio was merely a distraction for more politically salient issues for the party, which is very predictable. apparently receiving a standing ovation when he finished. also sort of predictable. but not everyone was pleased. nbc news reports that congresswoman marjorie taylor greene, and both mccarthy should apologize for their comments. neither of them did. congressman gaetz, the subject of the conversation, asked scalise to state which one of his comments he considered illegal. he refused to provide specifics. but mccarthy tried to remind gaetz of the real enemy, quote, mccarthy urged unity and said republicans should be attacking democrats. jacqueline alemany covers the fallout for the january 6th insurrection. her latest article is how the january six committee is looking into the discussions of trump using martial law. let's start on the caucus dynamics as best as we can tell from your reporting and others, jacqui, about what -- the kind of balance of power in this caucus, which seems to me to be much more waited between the marjorie taylor greene's and matt gaetz's of the world today than it was on say, january 10th of last year. >> yeah. there is sort of an asymmetric balance here. they still hold the attention of a very important constituency for all house republicans. that is trump's base. but on the other hand, at this point, you know, these fringe members are being overpowered, and the rest of the house gop conference are being extremely frustrated with their antics, and some of their behavior. that is why in the closed-door meeting this morning, warehouse minority leader kevin mccarthy received a standing ovation for trying to sweep these comments under the rug, and called for unity and for his members to focus on issues like inflation, or the border. matt gaetz and marjorie taylor greene were the only two who really protested. and in the aftermath of that meeting, as we chased on members who were then walking to the capital, they did not want to get into what exactly those two members said. but did sort of roll their eyes at gaetz and taylor greene asking steve scalise to apologize, and bending frustrations with what that leaked audio said about them. >> yes. i mean, what i thought was interesting, i will play some he -- there concern is, people just died, we have a near threat to democracy, we were held up. what you guys are saying is wrong. here is scalise talking today about, basically telling matt gaetz i am sorry, kind of. take a listen. >> so i share that with matt, i am sorry that those comments caused him problems. because it was things that were conveyed to me from a number of places. you can go back to those days after january 6th. there were a lot of reports floating around. some turned out to be true, some. not so, as you are having private conversations, commenting on those things, ultimately the concerns i had were that there were members getting death threats. that was something that i surely wanted to be vocal at pushing back on. but he and i talked about that. >> you know, i am thinking here the distinction between when they are doing here, and what they are doing in madison cawthorn. guns are blazing. they are out. they were tweeting about the insider creating, and his sin was telling a podcast about coke orgies. someone if they want to, i guess is my point. and they are not really going to do that with marjorie taylor greene, or matt gaetz, even if they roll their eyes. >> yes, chris. what we just heard there from steve scalise was half revisionist history. and marjorie taylor greene, and matt gaetz continue to propagate the same conspiracy theories, and it doubled down on a lot of the rhetoric that they were peddling ahead of january 6th, 2021. and you know, most recently, just a few months ago on steve bannon's podcast, said they have no shame for any of their actions, and their contributions to potentially -- however many people died in the january 6th insurrection, and said that they had walked through, again, a lot of their plans. and some of the legal avenues that they were exploring. so, a leadership wants to sweep this under the rug for obvious political issues of political expediency. but their members, we should be very clear, continue to believe and disseminate these really dangerous claims. >> quickly, just on your latest reporting in the january 6th committee, they say they have been looking at discussions of invoking the insurrection act, or declaring martial law. of course, that is marjorie taylor greene said members were urging. using presidential powers to justify -- re-run of the election. what can you tell us about that? >> i think what is important about these leaks that we saw this week from the january six committee about marjorie taylor greene saying that a lot of the members were calling to -- for the former president to invoke martial law, is sort of the broader context here. it was not just gop members. this was a lot of -- this was, you know, trump's outside legal team. people who are presenting these actual proposals to the former president in the oval office. there were many different players who were throwing spaghetti at the wall, trying to get the president to use extraordinary measures to strong-arm his way into overturning the election. the committee is certainly interested in that. and also trying to determine the extent that the former president was actually seriously considering these proposals. >> jacqueline alemany, as always, thank you so much. still ahead, as republican candidates across the country fall over themselves to align with trump, trump endorsement does not mean the same thing in every race. that is next. ery race. that is next i am very pleased to introduce the man with by far the best chance to defeat the radical democrat nominee for the u.s. senate this november. and you know what? you know what? he is a guy that said some bad stuff about me. he did. but you know what? every one of the others did also. in fact, if i went by that standard, i don't think i would've endorsed anybody in the country. they also all said bad stuff. but they all come back. >> when he is right, he is right. there is no question that donald trump's personal endorsement still holds a lot of weight in republican primaries. the trump endorsement of the ohio senate candidate he was introducing there, j. d. vance, is apparently moving the needle. vance was in third place with 11% in a fox news poll last month, with about half the support of the other candidates, josh mandel and mike gibbons. that was all recently last week, that was all shaken up vance's support with 23% recently. then there are cases like georgia, where republican governor brian kemp is generally pro-maga in world view. except for, he failed to support the attempted coup by trump and for that sin he is hated by trump. and trump is running a scorched earth campaign to destroy kemp, which does not seem to be working. incumbent governor is trumping for senator david perdue, handpicked alternative, who is campaigning on the big lie. there's less than a month until voters decide which man will be the republican nominee for governor. so, the central question in this year's primaries is just how much a trump endorsement is worth, really. natalie allison is a reporter for politico. he has been covering senate races across the country, including the vance race in ohio. she joins me now. let's start with that open question. i do think it is a sort of complicated question. there are many factors at play. it does seem that everyone wants to kiss the ring. everyone wants trump's endorsement. people do not speak poorly of him. what it also seems like is that the actual endorsement itself sometimes really helps and in other places it does not. >> that is right, chris. you look at a place like ohio, where j. d. vance for months -- months and months and months -- was really near the back of the polls. he was near the very end. and suddenly he gets this trump endorsement. and not only does it result in a groundswell of people coming out to campaign for him. but immediately, there's $5 million into a super pac that was nearly out of money, largely funded by billionaire peter thiel as well. the moment it got the trump endorsement, those people had a clearance to put more money because it actually meant he had a chance of winning. i talked to him last week in ohio and he said that a week before he got the trump endorsement, he did not think for sure that he could win the race. then, everything changed the moment he got that endorsement. >> yes, we should note that, as you noted, the working class hero of j. d. vance, the populist speaker upper for the overlooked americans is being backed by peter thiel, billionaire investor, as well as tucker carlson, the dinner food heir. it's also worth noting that that same endorsement has fallen flat and other places. not just in the senate race, or the gubernatorial race, it looks like trump's candidate is going to lose. i wonder if you can tell us about where it doesn't does not matter. >> it makes a lot of difference in a place like pennsylvania. they have a primary coming up we are trump endorsed men it was, and this is despite a pretty intense opponent to try to get the endorsement. but mehmet oz is not from pennsylvania. he has not been involved with politics in the state. and with someone like that, it's really necessary to have trump's endorsement to have republicans voting in that primary permission to vote for someone who has been attacked by tens of millions of dollars on the air right now, saying he's a liberal rhino and an out of touch hollywood elitist and things like that. and so you look at a place like alabama, where trump endorsed moe rook's. moe brooks is someone that everyone knew there. so, the trump endorsement does not really put moe brooks on the radar. and of course as we saw, because mo brooks was not performing very well, trump ultimately withdrew that it endorsement. >> yes, we should note the endorsements of herschel walker, j. d. vance and mehmet oz. he almost created that campaign, that of herschel walker. the real consistent world view he has is that he likes people he has seen on tv, who are famous. that's the three things those people have in common. and i think that that for the many people spend time in the conservative chances. that's where. did it also means that he's genuinely endorsing people who have high rating in name recognition. and who are taking the bets a bit in terms of the win and loss. >> that is right. in the case of j. d. vance, though, it is interesting. because j. d. did not have particularly high ratings. he has been pummeled for months by the cult of whoa, which is spending a lot of money to remind people what trump vance has said about trump. and that has really hurt j. d. vance's favor ability. they are having to do some last-ditch campaigning to try to tell people, no, trump is okay with j. d. vance. he has changed. he is a different guy from the person you have been seeing in ads. >> it's amazing how it is about this individual psycho drama in the end. thank you very, much natalie allison. >> up next, why is the brand-new treatment the vice president is taking for covid being ignored by most of the country. it's out there, you can get. it that ahead. can get. it that ahead. (woman) oh. oh! hi there. you're jonathan, right? the 995 plan! yes, from colonial penn. your 995 plan fits my budget just right. excuse me? aren't you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan? yes, from colonial penn. i love your lifetime rate lock. that's what sold me. she thinks you're jonathan, with the 995 plan. -are you? -yes, from colonial penn. we were concerned we couldn't get coverage, but it was easy with the 995 plan. -thank you. -you're welcome. i'm jonathan for colonial penn life insurance company. this guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance plan is our #1 most popular plan. it's loaded with guarantees. if you're age 50 to 85, $9.95 a month buys whole life insurance with guaranteed acceptance. you cannot be turned down for any health reason. there are no health questions and no medical exam. and here's another guarantee you can count on: guaranteed lifetime coverage. your insurance can never be cancelled. just pay your premiums. guaranteed lifetime rate lock. your rate can never increase. pardon me, i'm curious. how can i learn more about this popular 995 plan? it's easy. just call the toll-free number for free information. (soft music) ♪ >> if we have learned anything about covid in the last two years, it is that the virus is a waiver for mining of its presence, even when you want to forget it. for example, i am a huge chicago bulls fan. the team summer to score is missing tonight's playoff game due to covid safety protocols. it is the third time the virus has kept living on the sidelines since the start of the pandemic. of course, the vice president of the united states, kamala harris, has also tested positive for covid. thankfully she is vaccinated, and double boosted, which prevents the worse outcome of the virus. we wish her a speedy recovery. what's so maddening about this current moment in the pandemic is that while the return to normal crowd has indisputably one of the political policy debate, there is no more mask on airplanes thanks to a trump appointed federal judge, there is basically no restrictions on public life at all at this point, okay. we are still overlooking very obvious, easy things that could help reduce risks from the virus. and since the start of the pandemic, people have been touting all of these false cures, quack treatments like ivermectin. used in both humans, and livestock as an anti-parasitic drug. the fda warned against this used to treat covid, arguing there is no evidence it works. but that and not stop anti-vaxxers, and conspiracy theorists from pushing ivermectin as a cure. >> because there is this treatment and ivermectin, and other treatments as well, because of this there is a lot of pushback against potential treatments and pretending that they don't really work, or that they are conspiracy theories. this is the grand conspiracy. the grand conspiracy is the pharmaceutical companies are all in cahoots to try to make anyone who takes this stuff look crazy. >> the point is you cannot get ivermectin in this country, even if a doctor prescribed it. pharmacies like cvs and walgreens are not -- are refusing to fill the prescriptions because, why? it is cool to give [inaudible]. >> no. there is a reason. it is because it does not work!,, [inaudible] that it did not work. [inaudible] more study and we [inaudible] large-scale studies showing [inaudible] out of brazil and determined it is [inaudible] quote, did not result and a lower it to hospital or due to progression of covid-19 or of prolong the emergency [inaudible] of covid-19. [inaudible] and [inaudible] had a [inaudible] apparently calling for them [inaudible] forcing otherwise. >> we shouldn't have to fix [inaudible] trying to go out there [inaudible] anthony fauci [inaudible] but i am looking for [inaudible]. i am looking for someone tough like cheryl lamb, to issue a warrant for anthony fancies arrest out of arizona. >> i give, up i swear to, gotta give up. first of all, fauci had nothing to do with it. that is neither here nor there. but >> this really does drive me totally crazy. we have a pill that treats covid. it is like ivermectin but real. it is the real version of the therapeutic that people like joe rogan and others have talked about. they should have just named the darren thing ivermectin. but it is called paxlovid. and it has been shown, in clinical trials, to dramatically reduce hospitalization or death rates for covid patients as much as 89%. not perfect, it's not a miracle cure. but there is real evidence behind it. in fact, vice president harris announced he is taking the anti viral. but the drug still widely ignored in this country, by patience. it is not really their fault. even as the white house pushes to expand their use. the biden ministration says that only 500,000 doses of the treatment have been administered, far short of the 20 million doses the government has committed to purchase. meanwhile, hundreds of people die of covid every they in this country. again, we all want a return to normal. we basically have. that is what it is. we should take advantage of the actual tools we have to fight the virus. to really obvious ones mean getting a booster shot if you have not done so. only 30% of ideological adults have. and it means, if you know someone -- you or someone you love get the case and you talk to your doctor, there are effective treatments. call your doctor. r doctor xfinity mobile runs on america's most reliable 5g network, but for up to half the price of verizon, so you have more money for more stuff. this phone? fewer groceries. this phone? more groceries! this phone? fewer concert tickets. this phone? more concert tickets. and not just for my shows. get $400 off an eligible samsung device with xfinity mobile. take the savings challenge at xfinitymobile.com/mysavings or visit your xfinity store and talk to our switch squad today. >> just over two months and to russia's invasion of ukraine there is an open question about the current state of the russian military. is it degraded? what is the best definition we have provide given the nuclear power? the kyiv independent has published in estimates of russia's losses, which of course should be taken with enormous grain of salt. this is fundamentally ukraine ministry of defence propaganda. they show that as many as 22,000 russian troops have been lost. just incalculable staggering numbers, along with 900 tanks, 400 artillery units. these numbers are likely inflated, and yet independent estimates still report significant losses for russian troops. so even though they are entering part of the phase in the war in ukraine, because bottles are concentrated in the eastern region where russia has a significant advantage, the seemingly endless supply of military support from the west, against the russia military that has seen substantial losses, means it is not clear who hold the upper hand in the next phase of this invasion, and war. joining me now is helene cooper. you have been writing about this, this next phase of the war which is i think all part of the worst hit us the next phase. they are trying to encircle kyiv. they now have this bottle concentrated in the south, and the east. what is the pentagon's assessment of how much military capabilities have degraded, and what it means for who has the upper hand in this bottle? >> hi, chris. thank you for having me. it is a really good question that you are asking. at the moment the pentagon is spending a lot of hopes on the ukrainian military's ability to continue to stymie russia. this is a new phase now of the war. this concentration in the donbas means that instead of trying to enter cities, which is what the russian military had tried to do in the first two months and spectacularly failed by and large to do, they are going to be fighting now, trying to fight over much more open plains. more open territory. this is all typically where the ukrainian military has been digging trenches ever since 2014. 2014, they have been fighting for that long there, and they are in these entrenched defensive positions. their tanks are in trenches, and they are able to, you know, pop up, they are able to dig in, and pop up in these defensive positions. take a shot at the russians, and then go back down. the russians on the other hand are the ones having to come over these open fields. they are going to be doing a lot of pounding with artillery fire. they have already started doing that. and then following up with their tanks, and their troops. but it is a harder fight for them than if you are in a defensive position. you could just imagine that kind of a battlefield position. so it is an open question at this point how the russian military will do. i think we will know a lot more about their performance in the next few weeks. the pentagon is hitting a lot of hopes right now that the ukrainian military will continue to perform as they have been performing. >> well, a question that we have been sort of wrestling through, and reporting on in the show throughout is this question about the outcome. and battlefield victory. what it would mean, whether it is possible. i think in the beginning, the collective judgment of western intelligence services, the u. s. intelligence services, was that battlefield victory was unlikely. maybe it would be difficult, maybe it would take a little while, there is a shift. you saw the secretary of defense in austin saying, this the video that we played, we think they can. when everyone hear things they can win. what winning means could be determined. but it seems like that determination is matched up with weapons, and that there will be a response to the russians on that. i wonder what the pentagon is calculating about that. >> absolutely. that is where it starts to get very sticky, then. because what does winning mean? the biden administration hopes that winning means vladimir putin then goes to the negotiating table, much more serious than he has been in the last two months when he said operatives there, russian officials to negotiate, that he actually was put in such a bad position that he is willing to negotiate. but that is about as much as they possibly hope for. that is their definition of winning. >> i think as well, the other question here is, there is some talk about how mobilized the russian military can be as long as the message back home is -- it is illegal to call it a war in russia to the extent that russia and putin mobilizes essentially mass opinion through the state media to say no, this is a war now. that can also be another factor in what resources they are able to call upon for this phase of the battle. >> absolutely. it becomes, but then it gets politically risky for putin. because he has been telling russian people that it is a special military operation, as you say. he has not come clean with them that this is an all out war. if he goes to national mobilization, and which is what he will have to do if he is pushed back, because he is basically -- is expanding now about all of his already come back power it is being expanded now. so, this goes a lot longer, and a lot deeper, and he is going to need to go to -- he is going to need to go back to the russian people with some sort of national globalization, or something else. that is a whole other political story for him. >> helene cooper, great to have you on, thank you very much. that is all in on this wednesday night, the rachel maddow show starts right now. how starts right now involved in that, actually, but we were told, and you get hit withwe fruit, it's, no, it's ve violent stuff. we were on alert for that. question, a tomato is a fruit all, i guess. answer, trump, and you know what? interjection from separate lawyer. judicial notice, please. trump's owner lawyer jumps in and says it has seeds. meaning a tomato has seeds and therefore it is a fruit. trump continues. it's worse than tomato. it's other things also. but tomato, when they start doing that stuff, it's very dangerous. that's actually literally the transcript. but tomato, when they start doing that stuff, it's