democrats are still on his side with the white house pleading for congress for $61 billion more in aid, but congressional republicans are not moved. speaker mike johnson even avoided posing for a picture with zelenskyy today. instead telling the wartime leader that the u.s. border must come first. zelenskyy is meeting with president biden right now as you saw. we should hear from both of them again at the white house in about an hour. what can they say to change the mind of republican lawmakers and if they cannot, what will happen to ukraine and how soon? first, let's find out how moscow is viewing this. joining us is keir simons from moscow and nbc news capitol hill correspondent, ryan nobles from capitol hill. chief, keir, excuse me. i'll just call you chief from now on. how is putin seeing this? is he watching this closely? >> he absolutely is. he hasn't said that himself but his spokesman, the kremlin spokesman, has been clear they are watching closely. kremlin officials will say that they know when congress will finish for the holiday. so in other words, they know that the clock is ticking. there is a belief in the kremlin that the atmosphere is changing and that this is a pivotal week. it certainly is with president zelenskyy there on the hill and then now meeting with president biden. then later this week, he will face a question from europe about whether ukraine will be able to start the asession process for the european union. meanwhile, president putin here in moscow will hold a traditional question and answer session with journalists and the russian people. it's very choreographed, but is another event this week that i think the russian government will try to use to double down. spokesperson for the kremlin peskov using those same talking points we heard on the hill today saying why would america spend tens of billions of dollars more on ukraine? it's not going to change the military position in ukraine. and i think what you're seeing with the russian government here and you can see behind me moscow is busy. the economy has not been as impacted as the west had hoped over sanctions. i think what you're seeing is the russian government hoping that they can move forward with president putin's election next year. he's out launching submarines this week. he traveled to saudi arabia this month trying to project himself as a leader that has moved past the conflict even while the conflict is continuing. but for russia, there is still severe isolation. you're not able to travel directly between russia and europe. what's happened in ukraine has changed things dramatically here even while president putin is going to try to act as if that's not the case. >> there's also a "new york times" report talking about the amount of losses they've sustained. hundreds of thousands, and among military equipment, severely weakening their military capability and readiness for anything else that might come their way. does putin see this as an opportunity, i don't know if you know this, but as an opportunity to keep pushing on into ukraine to try to take over the whole country or to start to negotiate for a settlement that might include more territory like the donbas or luhansk regions? >> it's a good question. clearly, there are those in the u.s. government who believe that that is the russian plan if you like. i think you know, it's right to say that there isn't necessarily an agreement within the russi government about what the plan should be. maybe president putin is a tactician. maybe he has different ideas in mind, but you can see here moscow is frozen, snow on the ground. i think that the russian government would settle for a frozen conflict if you like. they would project that as a victory. i suspect that's one of the reasons, i know that's one of the reasons why for president zelenskyy and for the ukrainian government, they don't see that as an option. >> let's talk about washington. ryan, it was such a different welcome than he received just a couple of years ago or a year and a half or so ago with everybody. bipartisan support. this time, the democrats were there to support him but the republicans were not. let me play for you what senator durbin said about how it went. >> i'm angry and i'm disappointed. angry that we would consider walking away from ukraine at this moment in our history. >> did he address any of the immigration issues? >> yes, he did. he said if we lose, you can count on occupation by the russians. warfare to resist them and massive migration of people out of ukraine into europe and beyond. >> explain more of what you're hearing on capitol hill, ryan. >> well, i just got out of briefings from the leadership of both the senate republican and democratic parties and you're getting a much different tone as to the status of these negotiations. the key negotiators are going to meet at 3:00 today. that's chris murphy of connecticut for the democrats. senator james langford of oklahoma for the republicans. kirsten sinema who's an independent senator. as well as representatives from the white house and from both of the offices of the leadership teams but republicans seem pretty insistent that there's just not enough time before the holidays for them to get a deal done. the senator minority leader mcconnell telling us a few minutes ago he believes this is likely to go into january which will make the process more difficult because they'll be up against a spending deadline. senator schumer took a different tone. he believes there's a sense of urgency and he's very concerned by the rhetoric from mike johnson and mcconnell that they'd just be willing to go home for the holidays for three weeks and not deal with this until january. in fact, speaker johnson said basically that right after he met with zelenskyy. take a listen to that. >> they have not provided us the clarity and the detail we requested over and over since literally 24 hours after i was handed the gavel after 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 that i think the american people are owed. >> so johnson just not moved enough to keep his people in town past thursday. especially when there doesn't appear to be any real tangible progress on this kind of grand bargain that would allow them to get everything over the finish line. and i think what's frustrating particularly for senator schumer and for the republican hawks who were supporters of funding for ukraine is that most republicans believe that this is a necessity. but now that it's been tied up in these border negotiations, they feel it's too great of an opportunity to let them pass by and that's why they're insistent on what they're calling transformational change at the border before they move at all ukraine. >> seeing it as aovent to use some of their own leverage. gentlemen, thank you very much. joining us now, george packer. his article is in this month's issue and it's titled we only need some metal things. will america abandon ukraine? also with us, former u.s. ambassador to russia and msnbc international affairs analyst, michael mcfall. michael, talk about what we left off with ryan. this idea that republicans are trying to tie ukraine aid into immigration and the border and democrats are not having any of it. how do you view this? >> i view it as wrong. i'm happy that people want to debate immigration reform. that's long time coming. that's a very important public policy issue. but ukrainian soldiers should not be held hostage to that debate. and i want to remind everybody that it was just months ago that these same republicans were saying we need to have clean votes on individual appropriation bills and now they're doing exactly the opposite. so yes, we should have that debate and we should, everybody should learn more of the details of that, but it should not be held hostage to something that by the way speaker johnson was also wrong when he says we need to think of our security interests first, it is in america's national security interest to stop putin's army from taking more of ukraine. and so i really wish they could just separate these issues and get this done before the holidays. >> the argument has been that if putin is able to win in ukraine, he will keep moving. he'll take, you know, he'll try to rebuild the ussr and that will include some nato countries. do you still see that given the amount of losses russia has sustained? what it's gone through with this war. the resistance it's met and would he really want to have a war with the united states and the west with nato if he were to step foot into one of their aligned countries? michael? >> i don't think he wants a war with nato, but he definitely wants the take more of ukraine and you don't need to believe me. listen to him. listen to what they say. they're very explicit that they want to take more of ukraine. if we don't provide this assistance, that will happen. and then here's what's going to happen. then that threatening army is going to be on the borders of our nato allies and our nato allies are going to say we need more soldiers, american soldiers, to deter that attack. we need more american military assistance to deter that attack. so yes, maybe it won't be a direct threat, but indirectly, our allies will be nervous and that will mean we will spend more money to deter putin's army if we allow him to succeed in ukraine. >> george, you've been talking to soldiers in ukraine. what are they telling you? >> yeah, the other day, i talked to two soldiers. a volunteer private and a major and they are following our woeful debate very carefully because their lives literally depend on it. the major said to me everything that america doesn't give, costs us in ukrainian soldiers' lives because if it's a matter of artillery shells, they're being outfired by three or four or five times to one by the russians because of the shortage of 155 millimeter shells. if it's antimissile defense, their cities are being destroyed and their infrastructure destroyed in advance of winter by russian ballistic missiles which rained down on kyiv just today. to me, it's more than just wrong. it's a disgrace what's happening right now. that's the word that senator vance used to describe president zelenskyy's visit to washington. it's the right word for what the republicans in congress are doing by essentially holding ukraine's fate hostage to their own domestic political wish list. while ukrainians soldiers and civilians alike are waiting day by day to find out if america is going to abandon them and they're not sure and i'm not sure that we won't. this doesn't feel like a game to me of chicken. it feels like a very real risk that we're going to abandon ukraine and that ukraine next year is going to face a slow, steady not just demoralization, but destruction of more of its cities, more of its lives, more of its military until putin is essentially in a position to demand what he wants. at that point, what are republicans in congress going to say to him? sure, take it, and take whatever else you want. the ambassador is exactly right. it doesn't end with ukraine. this will be an enormous political and moral victory for putin if he can face down nato and the west and say i won. >> george, in your article, again, we only need some metal things. you put this into historical perspective. can you make the comparison between what's happening now and prime minister churchill's appeal for aid in the 1940s? >> sure. in 1940, hitler had conquered most of europe and was really preparing for a sea invasion of great britain. churchill turned to franklin roosevelt and asked him to lend about 40 or 50 aging u.s. destroyers to defend the english coast. what churchill wrote, with great respect, i must tell you that in the long history of the world, this is a thing to do now. and i can't think of better words for the moment we're in with ukraine's survival on the line. this is a thing to do now. and the republicans who are out of opportune or out of a desire to appease russia are withholding this aid are really not that much different from the charles lindberghs of the 1940s who thought well, hitler isn't going to threaten us so why should we send our weapons to britain? that's just throwing good money after bad when in fact as the ambassador noted earlier, we are degrading the russian army. it's not as thoughhe to get away with what they're doing in ukraine without a cost to themselves. ukraine is in a sense doing the fighting for europe. that europe would have to do otherwise if putin decided he's going to test us a little further and see what happens if he goes into the baltics or part of poland which i think is not out of question. so ukraine is doing the fighting for us and to withhold the weapons is to be in an america of 1940. >> george, do you put any pressure on the democrats here to come to a compromise on the border? in order to get this aid out? >> i think the president probably regrets having put it into the bill in the first place because it wetted the appetite of republicans who are now asking for what they know the democrats will have a hard time giving. essentially reducing the asylum system to a shadow of itself. they know it's a tough one for democrats so they're going to keep pushing it. but who does that cost? ukraine. and in the end, it costs us. yeah, the democrats are negotiating and in a sort of desperate way, listen to what senator durbin said. i spoke to the senator in colorado who is a mild mannered guy. he feels as if there's a kind of blackmail going on but for what purpose? it seems to be at the cost of ukrainian lives and the future of democracy in europe. >> george, ambassador, gentlemen, thank you very much. >> thank you. coming up, her life wasn't at risk enough to qualify for a texas abortion. what the state supreme court ruling means for the other emergency abortion cases it is hearing. plus, president biden says prime minister netanyahu needs to change his government. what's behind the biggest rift yet between the u.s. and israel? and what it could mean for u.s. financial support. first though, it took the supreme court almost no time to say yes to considering whether to consider presidential immunity. what the justices told donald trump and when we could hear a decision. we are back in 60 seconds. d heaa decision we are back in 60 seconds. you know that feeling of having to re-wash dishes that didn't get clean? i don't. platinum plus is cascade's best clean ever. with double the dawn and double the scrubbers, it removes the toughest grease and residue for an irresistible clean and shine. cascade platinum plus. dare to dish differently. (husband) ♪ hey there family! while you're shopping, ♪ cascade platinum plus. ♪ get me a 5g phone, it's on my list. ♪ (wife) instead of doing all of this a better plan is to switch to verizon. (avo) this holiday turn any samsung phone, in any condition, into a galaxy s23+ on us. and now add netflix and max to your plan for just $10 a month. only on verizon. while i am a paid actor, and this is not a real company, there is no way to fake how upwork can help your business. upwork is half the cost of our old recruiter and they have top-tier talent and everything from pr to project management because this is how we work now. zblncht yesterday, we told you jack smith was petitioning the supreme court on whether the president enjoys legal immunity for acts he committed in office. just hours later, the supreme court responded saying yes, they would consider considering it. telling trump's team to respond by next wednesday, december 20th, so what might trump's team say? joining us now, joyce vance. this is fascinating because donald trump says he's innocent. he says what he was doing was part of his presidential duty. what did he want the supreme court to quickly rule on this in order to free him from this case while he runs for office? >> well, that's a great way of setting up this issue because yes, if you believe that you were entitled to presidential immunity, the argument trump is making, you would be eager to have that case heard by the supreme court. it would mean the case against you would be dismissed and you could go on your way with campaigning. >> all right. so, is that what you imagine trump's team is going to say when they respond? >> well, they're in an interesting dilemma. we know trump's strategy is always to try to delay the inevitable for as long as possible. it will be a tough argument for them to make here. it's tough to think of any reason to insist on going through the court of appeals and the extra delay that that entails. you know, the supreme court ten or 15 years ago used to rule when people asked for this sort of special treatment leapfrogging over the court of appeals and having the supreme court hear a case directly. the court would decline to do that saying that they had confidence that the court of appeals could decide the matter quickly and efficiently. but in more recent years, really the last few years, we've seen the court increasingly entertain these sorts of petitions for cases involving issues like daca or abortion, education. affirmative action. and so i think it's a heavy lift for trump's lawyers to oppose this but i'm fairly certain they will. >> it is pretty interesting they responded to the supreme court within hours of jack smith making the request. did you glean anything from their speed? >> well, they take the issue seriously. jack smith has brought on board one of the most consummate supreme court practitioners the country has who was formerly the criminal deputy in the solicitor general's office was in that office for 30 years. so this is a serious matter and the court will consider the government's request very quickly. that of course doesn't presuppose whether or not they'll grant it. >> so there's also some news that the special counsel's team has trump's phone data from january 6th and the day-to-days surrounding the final weeks while he was in office. if you were looking at this data, these records, what would you be looking for? >> well, as a prosecutor, you always like to have a defendant's phone. it can give you a lot of information and in this case, we have a little bit of a sense of what they're looking at because the reason we know about this is that jack smith has filed his disclosure about experts he plans to use and that gives us a window into what he looked at in this data. we know they have data beyond these two phones they've seized. the two are identified as trump's phone and as a phone possessed by someone else inside of the white house. could be mark meadows. could be someone else. and they tell us that they want to have experts who will talk about how people moved. they can look at phones and perhaps they've got information about folks who connected with trump's phone or the other white house phone and then maybe moved from the speech on the ellipse over towards the capitol. perhaps that's more general information about how population shifted from one place to the other. but we do know that they have images on those phones. they know when twitter was open and was being used and they know what websites were visited. so even though we don't know specifically what jack smith will be looking at, i think it's safe to think that he will try to establish that trump knew what was going on, understood that there was violence, that the capitol was being overrun and perhaps this will delve deeper into the sort of connections and role he played on that day. >> joyce, thank you very much. we'll be watching this closely. coming up, cracks in their alliance. what biden is saying for the first time about prime minister netanyahu. first though, if not kate cox, then who exactly wou