good day. i'm chris jansing live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. a deadlock in congress and a stalemate on the battlefield. the excruciating reality facing ukrainian president zelenskyy as he comes to capitol hill looking for help. could he wind up going home empty-handed? plus, a question the supreme court has never had to answer in the course of american history until now. can the former president face federal prosecution for alleged crimes committed while in office? the massive stakes involved, and the new implications that the court could be ruling to decide things once and for all. and a new nightmare emerging in gaza. word that fully half of the population there is starving. the latest on that and new calls from the heads of multiple global organizations for the u.s. to step up and put a stop to, quote, the humanitarian nightmare taking place. i'll talk to one of the women in charge coming up. but we start with the ukrainian president, volodymyr zelenskyy in washington to make an urgent in person plea that he's already made twice before that he needs billions more in u.s. aid to win the war against russia. and preserve democracy. he's got the backing of president biden, who he'll sit down with in a little over an hour. but in congress, his words may be falling on deaf ears. after nearly two years of fighting and more than $44 billion worth of u.s. military support alone, both democrats and republicans are increasingly skeptical about sinking more taxpayer dollars into a war with no clear end. here's what house speaker mike johnson had to say after a good meeting he called it a good meeting with zelenskyy, just a little over an hour ago. >> we need clear articulate of the strategy. they have not provided us the clarity and detail that we requested over and over since literally 24 hours after i was handed the gavel as speaker of the house. so what the biden administration seems to be asking for is billions of additional dollars with no appropriate oversight, no clear strategy to win, and none of the answers i think the american people are owed. >> nbc's kelly o'donnell is covering the white house for us. keir simmons is live for us in moscow. jacqueline alemany for "the washington post" and msnbc contributor. william taylor served as u.s. ambassador to ukraine, vice president specializing in europe and russia at the u.s. institute of peace and a u.s. army veteran. thanks to all of you for being here. zelenskyy ultimately got the money he was looking for the past couple of times he came to town. but what about this time, never great when you hear the speaker of the house saying, like, your answers are insufficient. >> that's exactly right, chris. it shouldn't come as a surprise to zelenskyy as this is the refrain that he has been hearing and that democrats have been hearing from republican lawmakers across capitol hill in the house and both the senate. you had chris murphy on nbc this weekend saying negotiations over this aid were pessimistic and haven't improved since sunday when he made those comments. as we all have been covering, there is increasing skepticism about continuing to provide this aid to ukraine. there hasn't been a lot of satisfaction with the way that weapons and this funding has been spent and then reported back to the u.s. in terms of that spending. and as johnson just said, he's echoing what other republican members are saying to each other and to journalists on the ground and in the halls of congress, which is that there is not a sufficient game plan here and that americans and the biden administration need to start coming to accept the fact that ukraine's ultimately might have to cede some territory to russia. democrats and the administration and some republicans obviously have not accepted this argument, and are continuing to make the case that by declining to provide this funding to ukraine, that they're only letting putin win and threatening democratic institutions writ large. republicans are trying to pressure democrats into supporting more aid and the bigger more robust package for border security. that's why this package is sort of all jumbled up right now. you're seeing funding for ukraine, israel, the border, and taiwan all lumped into one with democrats and republicans both hoping that each side will make at least some concessions. but democrats walked out of meetings today saying that what they heard from republican senators at least when it comes to that border package is insufficient so far for them to ultimately sign on to any sort of compromise here. >> so, kelly, when speaker johnson says he wants a clear articulation of a strategy that this war can be won by ukraine, is that something the administration believes it can provide or they believe zelenskyy thinks he can provide because obviously speaker johnson wasn't convinced. >> well, there is certainly a rational and a plan that can be shared, but is it sufficient to meet the political needs of the house speaker. that seems to be where the big gap is. the u.s. can provide some of the military sort of architecture of what ukraine is trying to accomplish and how u.s. dollars and materiel and all the support that the u.s. and our partners in europe and elsewhere have provided, how that is dealing with the fight against russia. but is it enough to answer the questions from some of the most intransgent members who have real concerns about this, and question whether ukraine aid is in the u.s.' best interests. a big test comes this afternoon where the president and president zelenskyy will be able to stand by side side, take questions from reporters and address the nation and implicit in that is speaking directly to congress and those who do have questions. so, it is a case of what does the house need to hear, and there may be more in the area of accountability and trying to make certain that dollars that are sent are spent carefully at the same time the administration says it is a war zone and there can't always be the kind of oversight and clarity on where every piece of ammunition, equipment, or money is spent in the heat of battle. so there is a willingness to give information, there may be a divide, apparently still a divide on what is satisfactory. chris? >> ambassador, we know from the polls that the american people support for continuing to pump billions of dollars into ukraine, has been waning, obviously now you have another situation with israel and what is happening in gaza. you met with president zelenskyy yesterday. how confident are you that when he's speaking to the american people today, and as kelly rightfully points out by extension to members of congress, that he can make a strong argument that billions of dollars more is not just throwing good money after bad. >> he can make that argument and has made that argument, chris. you're exactly right. he can say rightfully that he can win, he can push the russians back out of his country, back toward the international borders if -- this is a big if, he gets the support he's asking for from the united states. and president biden is ready to give. and that a bipartisan majority, both the house and the senate, are ready to vote. you all talked about other issues having to do with the border that are on the table and you talked about how the weapons are accounted. those weapons are well accounted for. there is no one that wants those weapons and the ammunition to get to the front line more than ukrainians. so that's well understood. president zelenskyy can make the case, if he gets the long range weapons in quantity, the volume he's talking about, so he can go deep into occupied territory, that he can win. he can disrupt the russians. they both recognize, both the ukrainians and the russians, that the big armored thrusts, breakthroughs, they're not happening on either side. but what can happen is if president zelenskyy gets what he needs from the long range fires, he can disrupt the russians so that they can't continue to occupy. >> so, keir, russia has been digging in and american officials tell "the new york times" and i'm going to quote "the times here," moscow has more troops and ammunition and missiles and has increased its firepower advantage with a fleet of battlefield drones, many of them supplied by iran, according to america officials. where does this war stand from russia's point of view? >> reporter: well, certainly, chris, the russian economy is more militarized than ever. it is pumped, if you like, to continue this conflict in ukraine. and i would say this, just listening to the conversation, chris, there is one thing that the kremlin and the biden administration agree on, and that that -- that is that this is a pivotal week, that what is happening on the hill is absolutely crucial. the spokesperson for the kremlin, dmitry peskov, saying that they are watching what is happening in congress closely and then doubling down on those arguments that you just have been talking about saying that billions of dollars more spent in ukraine, the kremlin spokesman says won't change the situation on the battlefield. what he described as the fiasco in ukraine and when you speak to russian officials, they even know when congress is going to break for the holidays. now, the russian people, chris, the polling and there is something independent polling suggests that they have increasingly wanted peace talks wanted to see this over and done with, but that being said, here in moscow, it is clear that the russian economy is still doing well, sanctions haven't had the impact that the west had hoped, partly because of the fact that russia has been able to use the money that it gets from oil and gas and fund the production of weapons, so all of that is happening here in russia as president putin looks towards an election next year. and what we have seen, just this week, is electioneering, launching two new submarines. in saudi arabia, in the united arab emirates, trying to be back on the world stage, if you like. so, the russian government believes that this is potentially a turning point, they are looking to washington to see whether they are right about that. >> so, ambassador, considering that domestic political situation vladimir putin is facing, that keir just outlined so well, can this war be won only on the battlefield, is it going to take him, vladimir putin, being able to claim at least some sort of a win, including ukraine saving some land? >> there a lot of people suggesting that, but when they suggested it to the ukrainians, the ukrainians are not interested. the ukrainians don't want to vehe russians on their territory. they see what happens in villages, ukrainian villages where the russians have been. atrocities, torture, assassinations, rape, kidnapping. that is what they -- that's what the ukrainians don't want for their citizens, and under russian occupation. so, the ukrainians are not interested in compromising on their territory and their people, so the suggestion from the outside, from some places in europe, some places in the united states, but not the u.s. government, i will say, that they compromise are not being well received in kyiv. >> so, what does a realistic conclusion to this look like, ambassador? >> so, again, if the united states and the rest of nato provides ukraine with the equipment, the ammunition, the supplies, the weapons, that they need, they can -- i was just there last month, they tell me that if they get that, they can succeed in disrupting the russian military operation in -- on their territory. >> disrupting or beating the russians? those are two different things. >> they are. but one comes first and then the second. that is when they disrupt, and then if they put -- if they can disrupt the supplies, going into their troops, and the troops are cut off, then the troops will have to be -- will have to be pulled back. that's the way it can end. it is also possible, chris, that if we don't provide that, that the ukrainians will have a very tough time. we'll be answering the question who is responsible for that ukrainian loss if we do not provide those weapons. >> ambassador bill taylor, keir simmons, kelly o'donnell, jackie alemany, fantastic panel. thank you so much. coming up, the special counsel wants the highest court in the land to take on arguably the central undecided question for donald trump. does presidential immunity shield him from prosecution? we're back in 60 seconds. m pros? we're back in 60 seconds we are on the cusp of what will be a pivotal moment in the prosecution of donald trump and his efforts to delay his federal election interference trial. the supreme court is now giving the former president until december 20th to respond to a petition filed by special counsel jack smith. in it, he asks the justices to decide if trump has immunity for actions taken while in office. and a separate filing is also getting its clues about the case that jack smith is building, using cell phone and location data, three expert witnesses are expected to connect when trump used his phone and what for in the time around january 6th and the attack on the capitol, specifically, quote, the movements of individuals toward the capitol area during and after the defendant's speech at the ellipse. glen kirschner is an msnbc legal analyst. also with me, nbc's vaughn hillyard. glen, the request was breaking around this time yesterday. then pretty quickly the supreme court fast tracked it. are you at all surprised by how quickly this has moved so far and how quickly might it move? >> you know, i would say i'm a little surprised, chris, but i'm heartened. to say, you know, time is of the essence right now would be an understatement. we have a presidential election coming up, we have a leading republican candidate for the nomination who is pending felony charges in state and federal courts. this is an issue that must be resolved before the election. particularly in the event donald trump is the republican nominee, i think the american people, the american voters have a right to know whether they will cast their vote for a convicted felon or a completely innocent exonerated man because he's been found not guilty on all the charges. so, we'll know more on december 20th, which is when the supreme court has directed the trump team to respond to jack smith's request that basically this case leapfrogged the d.c. federal circuit court of appeals and be addressed promptly and definitively by the supreme court. >> vaughn, how is the trump campaign taking all this? >> right, jack smith wants to avoid the risk of having this case delayed beyond the march 4th trial date that is currently set. the trump campaign explicitly the opposite position, just in a statement there last night, i want to let you take a look at part of it, a spokesman for trp says as president trump said over and over again, this prosecution is completely politically motivated, there is absolutely no reason to rush this sham trial, except to injure president trump and tens of millions of his supporters. this statement came in literally minutes before the supreme court said, hey, we are going to take up and consider this petition here. so, for donald trump and his team, they may be looking at having to work through this appeal directly with the u.s. supreme court and all of this comes down to the timeline, the political timeline, chris. donald trump says, hey, why did it take them three years to charge me after january 6th. but right now jack smith has his case, he's made clear he's ready to present it and we're looking at a trial that will last three months. if you take march 4th, fast-forward three months, that is -- that means the trial will conclude in the heart of the summer, july is when the republican national committee will convene at the rnc, for the convention to formally nominate the gop presidential candidate. that could be donald trump. if donald trump is able to delay this case here, that makes him in a better position to not have to deal with any potential conviction if that were to take place before july of 2024 or the general election. >> so, talk about the stakes if you will, glen. even if the justices rule for jack smith and company, could trump's lawyers still delay the trial until at least august, september, and then make the argument that he needs to be on the campaign trail, he can't be in court? >> they can try to make that argument, the problem with that argument is the only way you can hold up the trial date by using the courts, and appealing decisions is really for the issues that are presently on their way to the supreme court. a potential double jeopardy claim for which there really is no legal support and this absolute immunity notion. so, once the decks are cleared of those potentially case-ending motions, then donald trump really won't have anything to appeal, so he won't be able to weaponize the delay that is inherent in the appellate process to push the trial date down the road. i'm glad vaughn pointed out that the trump's position was instantly we don't want the supreme court to resolve this quickly. if you have an honestly held belief you're absolutely immune as you say in your court pleadings, and that the supreme court will rule that way, wouldn't you think you would want it immediately resolved so you can get out of this litigation altogether? the case would be dismissed, and you would be off to the campaign trail. >> so what does team trump say to that, vaughn? that is the natural and common sensical pushback. this trial is happening, you may not think it is fair, but it is happening. so why not clear your name if you're so sure of your innocence? >> right. donald trump made the case to the masses that this is not a fair trial, and essentially they're all but getting ready for a conviction and for donald trump he's made the case and there is fair criticism potentially to be had that the fbi and the department of justice ultimately did not ramp up their investigation until donald trump was making it abundantly clear he was going to run for president. and so, in donald trump and his allies' case, they're suggesting, well, if it was not that urgent to take up this trial, then why does it need to happen in 2024 when clearly the republican electorate based on polling thinks that he should be the next president of the united states, why not let the american public be the jury and decide donald trump's political fate and then in the situation that he were to come potentially get into the white house, there is the scenario in which he could all but throw out his trial, if this trial were to get delayed long enough. >> let's talk about this new reporting on witnesses who examined the phone data history, right? the use of twitter. how key could this information be to connecting trump to the movements around the time of the capitol riot? >> i started prosecuting back in the '80s before there were cell phones and before we could use those cell phones to virtually pinpoint where somebody was placing the call from, where somebody with a phone was at the time they were texting. so, all of this will kind of be weaving together a tapestry of potentially incriminating evidence against donald trump. because prosecutors, just because there is a tweet that comes out from trump's account, they still have to prove that it was donald trump who was, you know, had his hands on the phone, drafting that message to send out to the troops because his troops -- the troops, the people attacking the capitol, because when he said sort of midriot that mike pence didn't have the courage to do what he should have done, meaning to keep donald trump in office, what was the response from the folks midriot, they broke out in chants of hang mike pence. all of that needs to be proved. we know it based on public reporting, but in a court of law, you have to prove it with