Updated
Summary
Jane Mayer has reported extensively in “The New Yorker” about the disappearance of ethical standards in Clarence Thomas` work as a Supreme Court justice, thanks to repeated and now extreme conflicts of interest presented by Justice Thomas`s wife, Virginia Thomas. In her most recent article about Clarence Thomas in the “New Yorker” Jane Mayer rounded up legal scholars and Supreme Court experts all of whom expressed shock at what they read in Virginia Thomas texts to Mark Meadows. NATO`s secretary general said intelligence shows Russian units are repositioning, not withdrawing, trying to regroup, resupply and reinforce their offensive in the Donbas region.
Transcript
ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST: Lawrence, I`m grateful for what you`re covering tonight because I`ve been so preoccupied with the war coverage here, and there`s some big, big things going at home, the January 6 hearings, the developments at the Department of Justice, and the Clarence Thomas/Ginni Thomas saga that continues. I understand that you`re going into that deeply tonight.
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Yes, and, Ali, I`m counting on you to cover things that I won`t be able to cover in this hour. It`s teamwork.
VELSHI: I`m happy to do it, my friend. You have a good show.
O`DONNELL: Thank you, Ali.
We will show you later in this hour extraordinary video of the head of British intelligence describing the mistakes of Vladimir Putin. This is an amazing video to see.
But we begin tonight in the United States Senate where today Senator Lindsey Graham announced what was obvious to anyone that watched his outrageous conduct in last week`s Supreme Court hearing, in which he repeatedly violated the rules of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I`m going to announce my decision on Judge Jackson`s nomination to the Supreme Court. I will oppose her and I will vote no.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Lindsey Graham then listed some prison sentences Judge Ketanji Brown-Jackson imposed that he thought should be longer. Judge Jackson had already imposed every one of the senses when Lindsey Graham had confirmed her last year to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Lindsey Graham was one of three Republicans that voted last year to promote judge Jackson to the court after she had issued the sentences that Lindsey Graham has now, and only now, objected to.
The other objection Lindsey Graham mentioned his morning on the Senate floor was Ketanji Brown Jackson`s work as a public defender, which involved her representing prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. All of that the defense work has a lawyer done before Ketanji Brown-Jackson was confirmed by the Senate to her first judgeship in 2013, and Lindsey Graham voted for her than. In fact, there wasn`t a single vote against Ketanji Brown-Jackson in her first confirmation as a federal judge after she had represented clients at Guantanamo Bay.
Judge Jackson`s confirmation to the Supreme Court already has 51 supporters in the Senate, with Republican Susan Collins announcing she will vote for confirmation, just as she voted last year for Judge Jackson`s confirmation to the Circuit Court of Appeals. It was hard to see how Lindsey Graham was going to be going able to go from voting for Joe Jackson`s confirmation last year to voting against her confirmation this year. What`s new cases that she handled on the Circuit Court of Appeals that Lindsey Graham will find fault with, the answer turns out to be zero, none. There is no Republican objection to the work Judge Jackson has done on the appeals court.
And so, Lindsey Graham today had to humiliate him self, once again, this time, that he is announcing he will vote against Judge Ketanji Brown- Jackson for reasons that were present when he voted to confirm her twice before. Donald Trump to listen to Republicans has been, you can say anything, and then say the opposite thing whenever you want. Lindsey Graham has learned that lesson.
And Donald Trump`s lesson to Republicans has been, you can do anything and get away with it. And that is the message that Mitch O`Connell was sending to Clarence Thomas yesterday from the Senate floor.
After Lindsey Graham spoke this morning, Senator Chris Murphy steered the Supreme Court confirmation discussion to what he called, quote, recent revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Judge Jackson has answered hours of questions about her judicial philosophy, why she made certain decisions, why she represented certain clients, how her background has shaped her world view, every detail of her professional and personal life has been and will continue to be interrogated publicly as she goes through the final stages of this process.
But a strange thing is going to happen when Judge Jackson finally takes her seat on the Supreme Court. She will, after all this review and scrutiny, become effectively immune from ethics standards. Why is that? Because every federal judge, circuit judges, district edges, court of international trade judges, court of federal claims judges, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, every federal judge is bound by a code of ethics in order to safeguard the judiciary`s neutrality and transparency.
[22:05:20]
All federal judges, except for nine, the Supreme Court. Recent revelations surrounding Justice Thomas and his wife`s involvement in the events of January 6 have finally brought attention that those standards we try to uphold during the confirmation process quickly disappear upon confirmation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Disappear.
Our first guest tonight, Jane Mayer has reported extensively in “The New Yorker” about the disappearance of ethical standards in Clarence Thomas` work as a Supreme Court justice, thanks to repeated and now extreme conflicts of interest presented by Justice Thomas`s wife. Jane Mayer`s most extensive reporting on the conflicts of interest that Virginia Thomas presents to her husband appeared in “The New Yorker” under the title, “Is Ginni Thomas a threat to the Supreme Court?”
The article was not written this week after Bob Woodward and Robert Costa`s revelations about Virginia Thomas`s text messages to the last Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, urging the illegal overturning of a presidential election. The article was written to full four months ago. It was written before we knew Virginia Thomas was at Donald Trump`s rally on January 6.
It was written two months before we got to read Virginia Thomas`s text messages to Mark Meadows. The answer to the headline question in Jane Mayer`s reporting two months ago is Ginni Thomas a threat to the Supreme Court, was obviously, yes, based on the evidence presented by Jane Mayer two months ago. The question now is, can Clarence Thomas remain on the Supreme Court?
There is no evidence that Virginia Thomas has done anything illegal. There is evidence that Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas has the something illegal. On January 19th of this year, Justice Thomas participated in a Supreme Court decision that involved his wife. He did that before Virginia Thomas publicly amid that she was at the January 6th rally with Donald Trump. Justice Thomas did that before we knew that Virginia Thomas was a regular text and email correspondent with White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and possibly others in the White House, including possibly Jared Kushner, who testified today for more than six hours.
A January 6 member, Elaine Luria, said that Jared Kushner`s testimony was, quote, really valuable. Maybe he discussed communications with Mrs. Thomas.
On January 19th, Justice Thomas was the only member of the Supreme Court, the only one, who voted to block the delivery of Trump White House records to the January 6 Committee, including communications that were to and from Mark Meadows. We don`t know yet what is the massive amount of material that was handed over to the January 6 committee by the order of eight justices of the Supreme Court. But we now know that dozens of text messages from Virginia Thomas to Mark Meadows had already been turned over by the time the Supreme Court ordered all of the rest of that kind of communication, all of, it to the committee.
Virginia Thomas appears dozens of times in the first batch of communications that Mark Meadows voluntarily handed over to the committee. How many times will Virginia Thomas communications appear in the massive archive of material that eight justices ordered to be delivered to the January 6 committee, and only one justice said no? How much Virginia Thomas material is in there?
It was public information that Mark Meadows voluntarily handed over a significant portion of his communication to the general six committee, did Virginia Thomas get worried when that became public? Did Virginia Thomas think, oh, the committee and the public will see my text to and from Mark Meadows.
Virginia Thomas had a lot to worry about in those texts because now that we have seen her tax, we know that some of them are certifiably insane. Some of them advocate for turning over the election for no good reasons. Some of them say, quote, there are no rules anymore.
[22:10:02]
Was she worried about those texts becoming public? Did she know that Mark Meadows handed over texts to the committee? Is that the kind of worry that she would bring to the dinner table to her husband?
Mark Meadows handed over some texts. I wonder if he handed over mine or some of mine? And then the rest of the text from Mark Meadows and Donald Trump`s communications come before the Supreme Court. And eight justices easily agreed that it should all be handed over to the committee, and only Clarence Thomas says no. None of it should go to the committee.
Was Clarence Thomas knowingly saying no, you should not get my wife`s communications? The day will come in weeks or months when we will discover how many communications to and from Clarence Thomas`s wife were in that massive archive of information that Clarence Thomas alone said should not be handed over to the January 6 committee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MURPHY: It is not enough for us to just trust the core any longer and self enforced a secret, internal code of ethics. The highest court in the land cannot be exempt from the standards we hold every other federal judge to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: And that is one of the problems here. There is no code of ethics at the Supreme Court, but there is a federal law applies to all federal judges, including Supreme Court justices about matters that might come before them that might in any way involve or affect their spouses, specifically their spouses. The law requires that all judges, including Supreme Court justices, to recuse themselves from those cases.
Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe believes Clarence Thomas has violated that law.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURENCE TRIBE, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR: It specifically says that no justice shall participate in a manner where he has reason to know that his spouse or her spouse has an interest and the interest here is very direct. What Clarence Thomas did was illegal. If he continues to participate in matters that arise from the attempts to get information to the January 6 committee, or anything related to the 2020 election, he is going to be violating the law again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: This is one of those laws where there is no criminal enforcement mechanism to that particular federal law on judicial conduct. The only disciplinary action for Supreme Court justices is the crude instrument of impeachment, which has been used exactly once against a Supreme Court justice in 1805. As we discussed on the program must night, that Justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the House of Representatives but not convicted by the Senate.
Mitch McConnell went before the Senate yesterday to deliver a speech opposing the idea of impeaching Clarence Thomas. He is the only senator that had mentioned the possibility of an impeachment of Clarence Thomas on the Senate floor. That is how worried he is about this. And while he was at it, Mitch McConnell insisted that Clarence Thomas should not be forced to recuse himself from any cases, none, no matter how many text messages from Clarence Thomas`s wife that might be in the case file.
Even after reading Virginia Thomas`s text messages to Mark Meadows in “The Washington Post”, and knowing that there could be dozens more of them in the material turned over to the general six committee by the order of eight justices of the Supreme Court, even after knowing all that, yesterday, on the floor of the United States Senate, where impeachment trials are held, Mitch McConnell said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): I have total confidence in Justice Thomas impartiality in every aspect of the work of the court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Leading off our discussion tonight is Jane Mayer, chief Washington correspondent for “The New Yorker”. She is the coauthor of “Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas”.
Thank you very much for joining us tonight.
Jane, no one knows more about what Clarence Thomas`s work. No reporter knows more. I have been eager to talk to you about this. You raise the question very dramatically in your reporting two months ago before we knew the existence of these text messages. What do these text messages add to the story?
JANE MAYER, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORKER: Lawrence, first of all, thank you so much for having me on. It`s really great to be with you.
[22:15:03]
And I think what we have seen in a granular way is just how fringe the ideology is of Ginni Thomas and also how he uses her husband`s entre with people high up in the Trump administration in order to basically berate the chief of staff in this case into — over and over. These messages are relentless, saying that he has to act to overturn Biden`s victory.
And so, you really kind of see her in action in this. You see much more closely how deeply involved she was in the plotting and planning and scheming of the coup, which is some — just — I mean, as you say, I`m somebody who`s been writing about this and reporting on this for a long time, but I was — I find some of the text shocking.
O`DONNELL: Jen, one of the things that I find shocking about Clarence Thomas`s behavior in and all of the story, all of his behavior shocking, is he knows when his decision is coming down that he should recuse himself from, he knows there are eight votes. He is going to be the only dissenter, the only one.
And even at that point, he does not recuse himself. His vote was going to mean absolutely nothing. And he still did it. He still — in Lawrence tribe`s view — violated the law.
MAYER: Well, as you said, this is a law that has no enforcement. So he`s kind of laying down the gauntlet here. And maybe giving us a preview of what`s to come. I mean, one of the things that`s interesting about this is the story is far from over. There are other cases that are involving January 6th, there are sort of the plot to overturn the 2020 election.
It seemed, you know, sort of steamrolling their way to the Supreme Court. One of them involves John Eastman, the lawyer who advised Trump to — on how to — and try to get Pence to step in and not certify the electors. And that case, his papers have now been ruled that they have to be turned over to the committee and he surely will be appealing this to the Supreme Court.
And how can Clarence Thomas sit on that particular case, too. There`s going to be a big issue. I think it`s — there will be a ruckus if he does.
O`DONNELL: Jane, there`s a stunning line on the last page of your reporting two months ago in “The New Yorker” about Clarence Thomas and his wife and it says, for lawyers involved in cases before the Supreme Court, it can be deeply disturbing to know that Johnny Thomas is an additional opponent. You described several cases in which Ginni Thomas is definitely a player on one side of that case, cases that end up in the Supreme Court.
MAYER: I mean, in one instance, she has a business as a political consultant. In one instance, she was paid by a client who had an amicus brief in the Supreme Court. So, at the time that her husband was considered in this case and the client was Frank Gaffney, while Clarence Thomas was sitting on that particular case, Ginni Thomas was earning over $200,000 from Frank Gaffney. And none of this was disclosed at the time.
I mean, these are really serious conflicts. And if you talk to the most revered experts in judicial ethics, they are shocked right now. And, you know, the problem is, as you said, there`s no mechanism really for requiring a justice to recuse other than potentially an impeachment which is a far out possibility.
But the damage that gets done by this sort of thing undermines the credibility of the court and respect for the court. It`s exactly the kind of thing that Chief Justice Roberts has said that he`s wrong worried about. And Clarence Thomas has said himself that he worries the justices may be seen as just political.
Well, I mean, what could be more political than his wife`s role in all of this.
O`DONNELL: You`ve studied these two, both Mr. and Mrs. Thomas. You`ve spoken to people who know them very well. Is it conceivable to you that on January 6th, the day that we now know, and you didn`t know two months ago, but that we now know, Virginia Thomas was at Donald Trump`s rally on January 6, that at dinner time that night, while the Capitol is still occupied, while the police are still trying to clear the Capitol, that Clarence Thomas and Virginia Thomas are sitting at the dinner table and Virginia Thomas never says to her husband, “I was at Donald Trump`s rally this morning”.
[22:20:29]
Is that possible?
MAYER: Well, I mean, you know, anything is possible. But is it probable? You know, just — you don`t have to be a reporter, he just have to be a human being to know that that`s going to be — that seems a bit farfetched.
Also, you can see in these text that she talks about, she mentions to Meadows and one of them that she is just talk to which she describes as her best friend, which seems very much like coded language likely for Clarence Thomas, because they describe each other as each other`s best friends.
So, you know, I mean, it doesn`t seems possible that he would understand that she`s deeply involved in this. And it`s not just from the texts also. I mean, you could see that there are fights inside a lister that he has — that Clarence Thomas has a lister of his former court clerks and this issue of what to do about the election came up, and Ginni Thomas was apparently vocal in it and created a ruckus on that.
You know, her — she has said that she was there. And she has gone to Facebook and sort of cheered on the protests. I mean, there are million red flags here. And they`re also some red lines. And they seem to have been crossed.
O`DONNELL: Jane Mayer, you are on this case before any of the rest of us. Thank you very much for joining us tonight. We really appreciate it.
MAYER: Thanks for having me.
O`DONNELL: Thank you.
And coming up next, we`re going to show you some extraordinary video of Clarence Thomas himself describing in a conversation with his wife how important she is to his work on the Supreme Court. Eugene Robinson and NYU law professor Stephen Gillers will join us next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:26:29]
O`DONNELL: In her most recent article about Clarence Thomas in “The New Yorker”, Jane Mayer rounded up legal scholars and Supreme Court experts, all of whom expressed shock at what they read in Virginia Thomas`s texts to Mark Meadows.
Our next guest is the first expert quoted in Jane Mayer`s piece, Steven Gillers, a law professor at NYU, who calls the revelation of Mrs. Thomas` texts a game-changer. He told Jane Mayer: Ginni has now crossed a line. Clarence Thomas cannot sit on any matter involving the election, the invasion of the Capitol, or the work of the January 6 committee.
Was there ever a line separating Virginia Thomas from Clarence Thomas`s work? It doesn`t sound like it.
In this 2018 video of Virginia Thomas and Clarence Thomas discussing his work as a Supreme Court justice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VIRGINIA THOMAS, WIFE OF JUSTICE THOMAS: And the best part of being a justice?
JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS, U.S. SUPREME COURT: First of all, it`s — it would be impossible without you. I have to be honest. It would be — it`s sort of, how do you run with one leg? You can`t. It makes it whole when I have my wife.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Joining us now, Steven Gillers, a professor at New York University of School of Law. He`s an expert on judicial ethics.
Also with us, Eugene Robinson, associate editor and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for “The Washington Post”. He`s an MSNBC political analyst.
And, Gene Robinson, how do you run on one like?
EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Incredible. The whole thing is incredible, Lawrence. I mean, this is a slam dunk (INAUDIBLE) it should not be a question that Justice Thomas should`ve recused in that case involving whether or not the document should be turned over.
I agree with Professor Gillers. He has to recuse any further cases involving January 6. And he probably will not. A lot of his Supreme Court career, I think, has been about defiance. And I think defiance is part of his character. I think he sees it as part of why he`s there.
So I don`t think he will go gladly away from these cases. And maybe he can be convinced by the other justices. But I don`t think he will. He will just say — listen to all the reporting, seeing the uproar and say, oh gee, I better recuse. I don`t think he will.
O`DONNELL: Professor Gillers, everything we`re looking at here as long time Supreme Court watchers, you`re the most expert among us, is — was, inconceivable just weeks ago, days ago, before reading these texts. Even with Jane Mayer`s reporting, up two months ago, this was shocking, certainly to me.
Eugene has just raised a future shock that I can`t even imagine how to deal with. And that is the possibility that Justice Thomas completely ignores all of this and follows Mitch McConnell`s advice from the Senate floor yesterday, and refuses to recuse from anything, no matter how many Ginni Thomas`s emails and texts come out in the evidentiary base of a case.
[22:29:41]
STEPHEN GILLERS LAW PROFESSOR, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: Well, thank you for inviting me Lawrence. I don`t think it`s — I think it`s certain, near to certain, that Justice Thomas will not recuse himself from any case involving the January 6 committee, or the election. To recuse now, I think he will see it as an admission that he shouldn`t have sat in the earlier cases.
So he`s going to stay, and he knows he`s appointed for life and he knows that no one on the Supreme Court can get him to back down. So he`s the final arbiter of whether or not he can sit. And he is going to rule in favor of himself. That`s for sure.
O`DONNELL: Professor Gillers, just clarify for the audience, there is this notion that there`s a chief justice and he might be sort of their boss and can tell them to do things. That`s not really quite the way it works.
GILLERS: No, it`s not the way it works. Each one of them is a prima donna. And while there is a chief justice and all, he can beg and plead and try to persuade other justices to recuse in a particular situation. He has no power. The power is in each justice to decide.
So I am sure that Chief Justice Roberts watching the declining reputation of the Court in the country is beside himself, but there is nothing he can do.
O`DONNELL: Gene just anticipate for me the political reaction to Clarence Thomas refusing to recuse from cases, even when we know that his wife is involved.
ROBINSON: There will be a huge uproar. It will be a front page story for days. People will be — many people will be horrified. There is an amen chorus that will cheer him on and there will be talk of impeachment and he won`t be impeached because I think there`s no stomach for that. There`s not going to be a real constituency for that in an election year. It`s not going to happen.
Look, I think there is one shot here. I think if Chief Justice Roberts manages to get the other conservative justices together and somehow they all try to convince Thomas that the integrity and the future of the court is at stake here and that it will be a generous and good and American thing for him to do to recuse, maybe. You know, maybe.
But that would be a long shot. And again, I`m kind of pessimistic. I think he`s going to sit.
O`DONNELL: Well, The Democratic leadership of the Congress did not want to impeach Donald Trump the first time but thought the events overtook them. We will see what happens this time.
Stephen Gillers, Eugene Robinson, thank you both very much for joining us tonight.
And coming up, an extraordinary video of the leader of British intelligence today explaining the many mistakes of the mass murderer, Vladimir Putin. That is next.
[22:33:26]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: The official count of children murdered by Vladimir Putin in his war in Ukraine is now 148. That is just the official count. President Zelenskyy expects the real count to be much higher.
After Russia announced a de-escalation of military attacks, the Pentagon now says that Russia has actually increased the number of air strikes targeting Kyiv and its surrounding area.
Tonight, Russian troops shot at buses filled with civilian volunteers trying to help evacuate people. One person is killed and four injured in that attack.
Fighting has intensified in Mariupol, where thousands of civilians have been killed, according to President Zelenskyy.
Ukraine`s deputy prime minister said Russia seized 14 tons of food and medicine meant for humanitarian aid. NATO`s secretary general said intelligence shows Russian units are repositioning, not withdrawing, trying to regroup, resupply and reinforce their offensive in the Donbas region.
Today, President Biden said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There is no clear evidence that he is pulling all of his forces out of Kyiv. That`s an open question whether he`s actually pulling back and going to say I`m just going to focus on Donbas and I`m not worried about the rest of the country. I am skeptical.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: In a video tonight, President Zelenskyy said, quote, our Ukrainian cities are gradually being freed from occupiers. We know their intentions, what they are planning, what they are doing. They are leaving those places where we are defeating them so they could focus on other ones.
[22:39:45]
O`DONNELL: Today, Moscow countered U.S. Intelligence, revealing that Vladimir Putin was being misinformed about how badly the war is going. Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov said, “The United States does not understand what is happening inside the Kremlin nor Vladimir Putin himself.”
Here is what President Biden said today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: : How badly is Vladimir Putin being misinformed by his advisers?
BIDEN: That is an open question. There`s a lot of speculation. But he seems to be — I`m not saying this was a certainty — he seems to be self isolating. And there is some indication that he has fired or put under house arrest some of his advisers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: In an extraordinary speech today, Jeremy Fleming, the head of British Intelligence, laid out the many mistakes of Vladimir Putin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEREMY FLEMING, HEAD OF BRITISH INTELLIGENCE: It increasingly looks like Putin has massively misjudged the situation. It`s clear he`s misjudged the resistance of the Ukrainian people.
He underestimated the strength of a coalition his actions would galvanize. He underplayed the economic consequences of the sanctions regime. And he overestimated the abilities of his military to secure a rapid victory.
We`ve seen Russian soldiers short of weapons and morale, refusing to carry out orders, sabotaging their own equipment, and even accidentally shooting down their own aircraft.
And even though we believe Putin`s advisers are afraid to tell him the truth what`s going on and the extent of these misjudgments must be crystal clear to the regime.
This week, the Russian MOD stated publicly that they will drastically reduce combat operations around Kyiv and a city in the north. What it looked like they had been forced to make a significant change. But then, they proceeded to launch attacks in both those places.
Mixed messages, or deliberate misinformation? We`ll have to see how it unfolds. But at any event, it all adds up to the strategic miscalculation that our leaders warned Putin it will be.
It`s become his personal war with the cost being paid by innocent people in Ukraine, and increasingly by ordinary Russians too. The greater irony is, of course, through his actions, Putin has brought upon himself exactly what he was trying to avoid — a Ukraine with a renewed sense of nationhood. A NATO that is more united than ever and a global coalition of nations that condemn his actions.
Now increasingly, many of those truths come from intelligence. It is already a remarkable feature of this conflict, just how much intelligence has been so quickly declassified to get ahead of Putin`s actions. From the warnings of the war to the intelligence on false flag operations designed to provide a fake premise to the invasion. And more recently to the Russian plans to falsely claim Ukrainian use of banned weapons.
All this and many other subjects, deeply secret intelligence has been released to make sure that the truth is heard. At this pace and scale, it really is unprecedented.
In my view, intelligence is only worth collecting if we use it. So I unreservedly welcome this development.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Up next, we will be joined by Tom Nichols who will consider the question of what will Vladimir Putin know and when will he know it. That is next.
[22:43:58]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: Tonight, a U.S. official provided this assessment to NBC News, quote, we have information that indicates that some Russian government senior officials likely disagreed with Putin`s decision to invade Ukraine. Their disillusionment is probably amplified by the Russian military`s underperformance.
And joining us now is Tom Nichols, a contributing writer at “The Atlantic” and retired professor the U.S. Naval War College.
Tom, this — what did Putin know, when did he know it — or when is he going to know it question becomes fascinating. And all the intelligence agencies are kind of going public with their contributions to it as we heard from the British today.
TOM NICHOLS, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, “THE ATLANTIC”: Which I think is great. I think that the head of British intelligence saying that intelligence, the point of collecting intelligence is to use it and the Americans and the British have been using intelligence I think really masterfully here to keep people informed, to head off some of, you know, Putin`s future rationales and attempts to pop surprises.
I think Putin has to know something is going wrong. I think American intelligence sources that you quoted a moment ago saying that some people were probably against the invasion of Ukraine. I am guessing that almost, with maybe one or two exceptions of his month`s right-wing (INAUDIBLE), I`m guessing almost everybody around him thought this was a bad idea. But nobody wanted to tell him.
And that`s characteristic of dictatorships. Nobody wants to go in and tell the boss, you know, that this is a bad idea and it`s going to go badly because when it does go south on you, you`re going to be the guy that`s going to get blamed for having said it out loud.
[22:49:50]
O`DONNELL: Admiral Kirby tonight with Ali Velshi raised the question of what happens when Putin really does finally realize how bad it is, if he has not already? And let`s just assume for the moment that he has not yet realized that. Might that be a point for escalation on Putin`s part?
NICHOLS: It might be, and I worry about that because one of the things, as I wrote a few weeks ago in “The Atlantic”, one of the things that could squash a lot of internal dissent even within the Kremlin, much more in society as a whole, but even among his confederates, is to pick a fight with NATO. Because then almost any dissent, or departure from the idea that this is a patriotic war really will just get blown out of the water.
On the other hand, he may realize just what a jam he is in, let the military do what it`s doing now which is to reposition itself and claim that they meant to do this all along.
But I don`t know. This is not a man who takes humiliation very well. That`s the thing that really worries me and the question is, does he realize what a humiliating situation this really is for him.
And he may, even if he seeks some kind of settlement, he may lash out in a really dramatic way at the Ukrainians just to make his point even if he has to pullback and retrench.
O`DONNELL: Tom Nichols, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
Thank you.
And coming up, Representative Lucy McBath will join us with a secret story about Democrats in Congress trying to make life better for people who need insulin and Republicans doing absolutely nothing.
And this story is secret because it is exactly what the news media in D.C. always ignores. That is next.
[22:51:48]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: A new Politico Morning Consult poll finds that 42 percent of voters plan to vote for the Democratic candidate in Congressional elections this year. 41 percent plan to vote for the Republicans. 17 percent are unsure.
Now, those numbers could change if stories like this are presented to voters. Today, every Democrat in the House voted to pass the Affordable Insulin Now Act which would cap the monthly cost of insulin at $35 starting next year and almost every Republican in the House voted against that.
Every member of the House Republican leadership voted no to $35 insulin. Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy voted no. Minority Whip Steve Scalise voted no. Republican Conference chair Elise Stefanik voted no. The bill now heads to the Senate where Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock has introduced a companion bill.
Joining us now is Representative Lucy McBath, a cosponsor of today`s bill, who voted yes. Thank you very much for joining us tonight. What will this bill do for people who need insulin?
REP. LUCY MCBATH (D-GA): Well thank you so much, Lawrence, it is always a joy to be with you. you know, this bill it`s very, very simple in its nature. It basically will just lower drug costs for millions of Americans, about 40 million Americans in this country that are suffering from the chronic disease of diabetes.
You know, there is no time off when you live with this disease. It is a constant presence in the lives of as I said almost 40 million people. And it influences every aspect of their lives.
And so, we just know that this is an opportunity right now to help millions of Americans lower the cost of something that they need every single day to survive.
And I hope Republicans in the Senate will do what is needed to make life more affordable, and this drug more affordable for those families.
O5; I did not know that diabetes was a partisan issue. Did you hear anything in the Republican argument against this?
MCBATH: Yes, we did. I heard over and over again that we are not considering about — considering those individuals that are not going to be — those don`t have insurance, that this bill does not — this policy does not protect those individuals that don`t have insurance.
But as I said to my Republican colleagues on the floor today, I was like you are right, it does not. but there again, come to the table, build some compromise, some consensus, help us to do that very thing to make sure that we are putting forth a policy that will protect the lives of every individual in this country, whether they have insurance or not. Making sure that they will have access to this lifesaving drug and can afford to pay for it.
O`DONNELL: Going forward in the Senate, you have to pass a bill and then reconcile it with the House. There is plenty of opportunity still for Republicans to do the right thing beginning in the Senate.
MCBATH: Absolutely. And we were, you know, very fortunate today because we did have 12 Republicans that actually agreed with us. So it did make this legislation bipartisan in the House. We are really fortunate that we have Senator Warnock there in the senate who is championing this very vital piece of legislation.
And I know my colleagues and I in the House are going to do everything that we can to make sure we are encouraging the Senate Republicans to do what is right because as you stated, you know, diabetes is not partisan. It should not be partisan. Republicans and Democrats alike are diabetic.
O`DONNELL: Congresswoman Lucy McBath, thank you for joining us once again. We always appreciate it.
MCBATH: Thank you.
O`DONNELL: The Honorable Lucy McBath gets tonight`s LAST WORD.
“THE 11TH HOUR WITH STEPHANIE RUHLE” starts now.
[22:59:54]
STEPHANIE RULE, MSNBC HOST: Tonight, as Russian forces appear to regroup Ukraine says Putin`s army has handed back control of Chernobyl.