washington to try and secure aid stalled in congress. the dangers for ukraine without funding. then, november's inflation report is out, and the economy is doing well. so, why don't americans feel it? we will get into the numbers as "the 11th hour" gets underway on this tuesday night. good evening once again, i am stephanie ruhle, live from msnbc headquarters here in new york city. and today, donald trump is ramping up his campaign to halt all proceedings in his federal election interference trial. late this afternoon, his lawyers filed new documents asking for the case to be put on hold until there is a decision about his claim that he cannot be prosecuted because of presidential immunity. now, remember, it was just monday -- that is, yesterday -- a special prosecutor jack smith asked the supreme court to quickly settle that issue. smith's unusual request is about timing. he wants to make sure that the trial starts on or close to march 4th, the date that has been set by the judge overseeing the case. trump is also the main defendant in smith's other big case involving classified documents, those that were found at mar-a-lago. a new report from cnn says trump contacted a longtime employee who quit months after fbi agents searched the club last summer, but before charges were filed. according to cnn, that employee witnessed several episodes described in the indictment charging trump with. cnn adds, the special counsel's investigators spoke to the employee about trump's call, and calls to his associates. meanwhile, trump ally and former lawyer rudy giuliani was in court for day two of his defamation trial. remember, he has already been found liable. and now he could be forced to pay millions and millions of dollars in damages to former georgia poll workers ruby freeman and her daughter, shaye moss. giuliani falsely accused them of election fraud while the two were simply counting ballots in 2020, doing their jobs, an allegation that they say devastated their lives. today, shaye moss took the witness stand. my colleague ryan reilly was in the courtroom. >> it was really dramatic testimony from this election worker who is just talking about the devastating impact that these lies from rudy giuliani really had on her life. shaye moss talked about how this really did just take over her life. she talked about shutting down her facebook messenger because she was getting all of this racist garbage coming into her inbox, and shutting out her linkedin account as well. even pinterest people went after her. even after she moved because of the threat she was receiving, they found her new address, and sent her clippings in her own face, and -- so, just the sort of vague, threatening messages, all sort of with this layer of racism all around them. and she talked about how she thinks rudy has compared them to bank robbers. she really, i think, made a compelling case for the jury here. >> last night, outside the courthouse, giuliani falsely claimed in public that he told the truth about these women. today, the judge reprimanded him for doing so, and said his comments could support a another defamation claim. so, let's dig in and get smarter with the help of our leadoff panel. we have a lot to cover. my dear friend jon allen is here, senior politics reporter for nbc news. katie benner joins us, pulitzer prize-winning reporter for the new york times. and former new york prosecutor and civil rights attorney charles coleman. charles, let's start with the law. because trump's lawyers have this new filing to stop proceedings in the election interference case. why file this if you still have to respond to the supreme court after jack smith's request? >> stephanie, a large part of what you are seeing from trump 's defense team is, let's throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. i can't say that it is a bad approach to try and get what they ultimately are after, which is a delay. and jack smith has, in the immediate, kind of given them a leg to stand over with respect to their argument. but it is interesting to see what jack smith is doing in the supreme court. because, if he is successful, what he is going to do is essentially take one of their biggest tenets of their defense away from them. so, in the short term, yes, this is something that should be unsurprising regarding donald trump's defense team and what they have decided to do in terms of looking to have this delay everything. but in the long run, it actually -- if jack smith wins in the supreme court, this is going to accelerate all of -- >> katie benner, jack smith's request to decide immunity is a legal issue that the supreme court has never looked at before. so, what happens next? >> right. correct. so, with the supreme court is going to way is whether or not a former president has immunity for a crime committed while he was president. and part of this is going to turn on whether or not the supreme court justices believe that donald trump's actions -- what he was doing when he was trying to overturn the election -- could be considered part of his duties as president. is that part of the job of the president? to weigh in on election matters? there's already a lot of legal scholars and a lot of information out there already. that election campaigns or not part of an elected officials duties. they are the work that they are doing on the side to get reelected. but that is not really what you do when you are the governor -- when you are a member of congress, et cetera. so, it's one of the things to look at. but, again, this is not the -- decide -- but it's not clear that the supreme court even want to take this up. because it's pretty -- >> jon allen, what if the trial does get delayed? what does it mean for the campaign season, and maybe the other cases? >> it means everything. timing is so essential here, stephanie. if jack smith were to get the timeline he wants, you could have a verdict in the trial before the republican national convention in the summer of 2024, when donald trump would expect to be nominated. that could throw the republican party into a little bit of a chaos, if it gets delayed. you could see trump nominated and then have a verdict after that, before the election. and then of course if it gets very delayed could happen after the 2024 election and so timing is everything. >> charles, let's talk about a new topic. mar-a-lago in the case there. cnn has this new reporting that trump himself and his allies are reaching out to a former employee who was a key witness for the government. cnn says this witness is somebody who moved boxes, or conversations between trump and co-defendants, yet trump was reaching out to this person. would that be witness tampering? >> generally, yes. i think the thing that is so interesting about this particular story is the timeline. when trump began to reach out to him, and other people from the trump organization are contacting this witness, you have to understand he is a 20-year veteran of mar-a-lago who has basically resigned suddenly. and at that point, they are not necessarily a witness, and there is nothing illegal about that contact. however, as you begin to see them now and of context and -- in terms of what is being -- complimentary tickets to come to a golf tournament, saying that mr. trump knows you are a good guy, all of these things do lend themselves to the notion of witness tampering. so, i do think the timeline here is going to be critical. because even though he had not been formally identified as a witness, i think that an argument can be made by prosecutors that trump anticipated this and was going to try and stack the deck as much as he could in terms of influencing this witness or potential witness and their testimony. >> katie, i think a lot of people thought the mar-a-lago case was an easier one for jack smith to prove. but we don't hear much about it. is it on the backburner for smith? because he knows judge aileen cannon is a whole lot more difficult for him to deal with? and she seems to be happy to work with trump's timeline of keep on delay? >> i don't think i would say it's on the backburner. really, what's happening now is we are just watching the cases move through the core system. they are in two different courts with two different judges. so, this is the pace at which aileen cannon is running her court. keep in mind also, with the documents case, even though i think you could reasonably argue that it's a cleaner case with cleaver information, with real established case law, and there seems to be very little doubt that jack smith would feel confident in this case -- again, it's more complicated to bring because it deals with so much classified information. so, there is a lot of things that have to happen to deal with that classified information that would happen in any case with some such documents that has to happen in sequence before trial can even start. so, i would not say that he is backburnering it. i'm sure that prosecutors are working on that case are continually thinking about what they're doing in thinking about their arguments and dealing with evidence and deal with other issues as the crop. it just, we are not going to hear about because a lot of that back and forth is not happening, where is in public with the january 6th case you are seeing motions being filed for very radical things like this filing that jack smith and the -- a lot more attention. >> hello right, john. let's talk about rudy giuliani's defamation trial. he's out there again repeating lies about these two women, things who is already guilty of. yet donald trump is being oddly quiet during this case. why do you think that is? >> i think he is hoping that rudy giuliani will continue to basically talk about his belief that the election was stolen. and that is theoretically in support of donald trump's defense that he believes the election was stolen. what we saw from the judge today is really unusual in terms of trying to say they are trying to stop giuliani from harming himself. we expect he will take the stand this week. i'm hearing thursday. he really has the potential to do a lot of damage to himself. because the jurors are going to make a determination here as to what the cost is to rudy giuliani. and those punitive damages could really escalate if they decide he is not only lying about making a mockery of the court. >> charles, what do you think about that? that the judge came out today and said that giuliani could face another defamation claim because of what he said about last night about these women? >> the only thing i can surmise from giuliani's continued antics as you can get worse than zero. i think he sort of has been making the case in the public circle that his death has piled up in such a way that any of the damages would be -- but if you are giuliani's attorney should be very concerned about the notion of punitive damages that the jury will be deciding as part of this case. he is not doing himself any favors. and -- operating in at -- 's believe that he can trauma jury into believing that what he said about these women, these victims, who had no business other than doing their actual jobs and were attacked -- what he said by them was somehow still true. and i think that is something about that that just does not fit well and, it's not going to sit well in front of a jury. and so if i'm his attorneys, we don't want to put you on that stand, not thursday, not tuesday, not -- not any day. but if he does testify, it will be very interesting to watch. >> okay. then let's say he does. what on earth can he say? especially after hearing from these women what they endured for, again, telling the truth and doing their jobs? >> there are going to be two things that he -- number one like i said before he's really going to hone in on the idea that i'm broken don't have any money and -- illegal bills. but the other theory that he is going to try to advance as best he can is this notion that i cannot be held responsible for the extent of damage that was done by other people based on what i said. he has leaned into that narrative squarely and i expect that he is going to double down on that through his lawyers and his testimony should he take the stand, basically saying, look, even though i said these things, it could not have been foreseeable that the actions of other people took, perhaps on my behalf, perhaps on behalf of my client, mr. trump, were foreseeable. and i do not think that that is something that the jury is going to buy in its entirety. >> you know what i was thinking about when he says he's broke? didn't donald trump pay him? well, maybe he didn't. katie benner, let's talk about jack smith again. it's been reported he has added a new team member, someone who has worked with robert mueller. it is not andrew weissmann. who is it? what do you know? >> this is unfortunately something that i was not prepared to talk about but -- our friend andrew weissmann. [laughter] so, i'm sorry, then stephanie. but if you would like to pass the question on to one of our other panelists, that would be fine. >> well, let's move on. because there's another topic that i find -- i'm not gonna say more exciting than andrew weissmann. but certainly, and you're saying, george santos. mr. santos -- former congressman santos was off cameo for a few hours today, and in court. his lawyers and federal prosecutors seemed to be trying to work out a plea deal. this guy is facing all sorts of counts. what could be the heart of the issue? >> the heart of the issue is fraud, whether or not he defrauded the government in several different ways. lying about whether or not -- you know, stealing from his own campaign coffers, lying about his job, lying about employment, a filing for unemployment and collecting while he worked. there are a variety of ways that the government believes he defrauded the united states have america. and so he would have to plead guilty to those charges. and he has said he has not ruled it out. he has also said that he very much does not want to go to jail, that deal is very unpleasant. and i think when he did take a look at his options, settlement appear to be the best one. >> charles, why would the government want to settle with him? take this guy to court, put him in jail. >> i think there is a number of different reasons why prosecutors could do, it especially if he's willing to plead guilty, depending on what the penalties are. i would expect that, at some point during this prenegotiations, a there is a conversation, look, you can never, ever run for any public office again, anywhere, whatsoever, for any reason. i don't care whether it is school board or local janitor. you will no longer be on any public ballot on any sort. i think that is going to be a part of any plea negotiation. and i expect, on some level, there will be support for forfeiture and restitution, of some of the things that he defrauded people over regarding. so, there is some interest in terms of the government in terms of judicial economy. i don't know he would be able to avoid all jail time. but, we, as prosecutors, and speaking as a former prosecutor, are generally always going to consider whether the defendant is going to plead guilty. because that's going to make our jobs a little bit easier. but the contours of what his agreement will be are going to be very interesting. >> all right, jon, before i let you guys go, i need an explanation on this one. the department of education announced today they are going to be investigating more universities for discrimination and antisemitism. what exactly is the department looking at? is this directly related to some university presidents testifying last week? like, what exactly are they looking at? what is at stake? what would the consequences be? this is obviously a headline the department of education wants, but i don't know that it actually needs. >> yeah, it's a great question, stephanie. basically, under title six of the civil rights act, institutions that receive federal funding cannot support discrimination based on race or national origin, and a lot of factors. what they are saying is, they're going to look at whether this happened at stanford, or ucla, or rutgers, or university of washington, act whitman collage in walla walla, and ucsd, in addition to about half the ivy league and -- several other colleges that they're already investigating. of course, this comes against the backdrop of what we have seen in this extraordinarily passionate moment of the israel hamas war. and we have seen incidents of one after another in antisemitism on campus, and heard of islamophobia and -- on campuses. and i think this is the biden administration and education department specifically looking to see whether or not there were violations, again, because of title six of the civil rights act these are institutions that receive federal funding, and the federal government has the ability to go in there in conducting these investigations, and potentially find wrongdoing. >> we will certainly be thing paying attention to that. jon allen, but katie benner, charles coleman, thank you all for starting us off tonight. when we come, back ukraine's president makes a last-ditch plea for aid on capitol hill. but speaker mike johnson insists u.s. border measures must be included two best any funding. admiral james jes stavridis is here to -- on what is at stake. later, we dig into americas bad mood over our good economy. today's inflation report with our good friend justin wolfers. he's "the 11th hour" just getting underway on a tuesday night. what is cirkul? cirkul is the fuel you need to take flight. cirkul is the energy that gets you to the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul. it's your water, your way. >> i know that everything depends on us, on ukrainian armed forces. yet, so much depends on the world. so much in the world depends on you. to the u.s. congress, to members of the house of representatives and senators, whose decisions can save millions of people. so, let this decisions be taken. we stand. we fight. and we will win, because we are united. ukraine, america and the entire free world. [applause] >> president zelenskyy enjoyed a heroes welcome when he visited capitol hill last year. by then a visit to washington city, he failed to move republicans any closer to approving military aid for ukraine. that funding is still being tied up in the fight over the southern border. and right now, there is no sign of figuring things out before congress breaks for the holidays. our own gabe gutierrez has more. >> tonight, with the war waging and a brutal winter fast approaching, ukrainian president zelenskyy is making an urgent plea to congress and president biden. >> in ukraine, we are fighting for our country and freedom. >> the u.s. has already sent 111 billion dollars in humanitarian aid to ukraine since russia's invasion began. but that money is running out. the biden administration has been urging congress to approve a new 106 billion dollar package that includes roughly 60 billion dollars for ukraine, as well as support for israel and money to strengthen the u. s. mexico border. >> putin is banking on the united states failing to deliver for ukraine. we must -- we must, we must -- prove him wrong. >> we need an explanation on this one. so, let's welcome admiral james stavridis. he is a 30 year navy veteran, who retired with four stars on his shoulders. he is also head of the u.s. southern command, and former supreme allied commander of nato. i'm really glad you are here, because how is it that one year ago, i stand with ukraine was ringing through the halls of congress? and now, president zelenskyy he's greeted with gridlock? what the hell happened in the year? >> i think three things, steph. number one, the famous american lack of patience. we like our wa