Summary
Biden steps up pressure on Russia over Ukraine. Biden warns Americans that Russian invasion could have an impact on energy prices. Jan. 6 committee subpoenas 6 in fake electors scheme. German Chancellor Scholz meets with Putin in Moscow. Biden, French President Macron discuss Russia & Ukraine.
Transcript
CHRIS JANSING, MSNBC HOST: Good evening. I`m Chris Jansing. Day 392 of the Biden administration. Tonight, an unmistakable message from the White House to the Kremlin as the world waits and watches for Russia`s next move. President Biden issued a new warning to Vladimir Putin after Russia said it started a partial troop pullback from the Ukrainian border. Late today, the President said the United States is ready for anything and painted a bleak picture of the consequences of Russian military aggression.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, (D) U.S. PRESIDENT: The United States is prepared no matter what happens. The Russian Defense Ministry reported today that some military units are leaving their positions near Ukraine.
That would be good, but we have not yet verified that. We have not yet verified that Russian military units are returning to their home bases. Indeed, our analysts indicate that they remain very much in a threatening position. And the fact remains, right now, Russia has more than 150,000 troops encircling Ukraine in Belarus and along Ukraine`s border.
An invasion remains distinctly possible. If Russia attacks Ukraine, it`ll be met with overwhelming international condemnation. The United States and our Allies and partners around the world are ready to impose powerful sanctions on export controls, including actions that did not -- we did not pursue when Russia invaded Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JANSING: The President did indicate that the diplomatic off ramp is still very much available for Putin saying, "We should give the diplomacy every chance to succeed. That sentiment evident today in Moscow where German Chancellor Scholz met with Vladimir Putin. It comes as Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke by phone with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
Blinken also talked with the French German and British foreign ministers about a response in the event of an attack on Ukraine. The White House said French president Macron and President Biden also spoke by phone earlier today. The number and intensity of these discussions a clear indicator of just how high the stakes and the tensions are right now.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that according to U.S. intelligence, Russian government hackers have likely infiltrated Ukrainian military energy and other critical computer networks. The Post reports Russia could potentially disrupt those systems if a military assault is launched.
NBC News has confirmed the White House has held tabletop exercises to game out responses to an invasion of Ukraine. And tonight, along with his warning to the Kremlin, the President told Americans that U.S. led efforts to punish a Russian invasion maybe felt here at home.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: I will not pretend this will be painless. There could be impact on our energy prices. We`re coordinating with major energy consumers and producers. We`re prepared to deploy all the tools and authority at our disposal to provide relief at the gas pump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JANSING: All this comes as a bipartisan effort in the Senate to sanction Russia has dissolved into a strongly worded statement issued this afternoon, condemning any attempt to enter Ukraine.
We`ll talk about all of this just ahead with Ben Rhodes, former Deputy National Security Adviser for President Obama.
We`re also following important developments in the January 6 investigation tonight. The House committee investigating the Capitol riot has issued six new subpoenas that take aim at the heart of Trump`s big lie. These subpoenas are all largely focused on, "efforts to send false slates of electors to Washington and change the outcome of the election."
The Committee says, the half dozen subpoenaed had knowledge of or participated in efforts to send false alternate electors for Donald Trump to state carried by Biden.
With that, let`s bring in our leadoff guest tonight. Ashley Parker, Pulitzer Prize Winning White House Bureau Chief for The Washington Post, Yamiche Alcindor, current Moderator of Washington Week on PBS, and Chuck Rosenberg, former U.S. attorney and former Senior FBI Official. Apologies to all of you, I needed to get that out.
Ashley, tell me what you`re hearing from the White House about the President`s remarks on Russia today?
ASHLEY PARKER, THE WASHINGTON POST, WHITE HOUSE BUREAU CHIEF: What so the remarks today are striking for a number of reasons. Because you have the president, he came out, he spoke briefly, directly to the Russian people and said you are not our enemy amid all of the propaganda and disinformation. That was an important point you wanted to convey to the to the Russian people.
And of course, to President Putin. But you also saw him giving what we believe is a pretty honest assessment of where things stand, which is that again, despite what the Russians have said that they are scaling back a bit, the United States, the intelligence community, national security officials are cautiously optimistic or even still slightly pessimistic that this all just disappears and goes away.
And that`s why you had President Biden`s still say that they believe that an invasion could potentially happen at any moment. He laid out stakes. He talked about sanctions. And I think he was giving a clearer picture to the world, not just the American public with Ukrainians and the Russians, especially after I just want to very briefly bring you back the last Thursday night, except that people care a little bit.
[23:05:22]
We reported that Thursday, there was a sort of scrambled meeting in the Situation Room. There was new intelligence in that moment that an invasion looked increasingly imminent, and likely for this weekend, Jake Sullivan last Friday, came out in the Briefing Room and basically conveyed that, the tone of what we were hearing from U.S. officials changed. And so, Biden was sort of addressing where things stand right now, after things ratcheted up just a couple of days ago.
JANSING: Yamiche, Thomas Friedman writes in the New York Times tonight, "If Vladimir Putin opts to back away from invading Ukraine, even temporarily, it`s because Joe Biden, that guy who right-wing critics suggest is so deep and dementia, he wouldn`t know Kyiv from Kansas or AARP from NATO, has watched every Putin chess move -- matched every Putin chess move with an effective counter of his own."
So, what are you hearing from the White House? What`s the strategy to continue to keep Putin from a move where frankly, there`s no turning back?
YAMICHE ALCINDOR, PBS NEWSHOUR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, White House officials really are doubling down on the idea that they`re preparing for multiple scenarios. And what we heard from the President today was really a grave warning, but also a public warning to Putin himself. So really a direct message from the President to say, this will be a war of choice, if you end up invading Ukraine.
He also was very clear that this would be a self-inflicted wound. This was a really telling message that really, I think, underscores the White House approach here, and that is that President Biden himself is coming out and making sure it`s clear to Russia, that if in fact, Vladimir Putin does decide to invade, that there are going to be dire consequences for his country.
The President, I think, was also -- it was very important that he made that warning to Americans and said, look, I am of course, the president, essentially of ending wars, he campaigned on it, he withdrew from Afghanistan and also defended himself against the criticism, but he`s telling Americans now look, this might come home, and things might get tough here at home, because we have to go out and defend freedom, again, because we are a member of NATO.
So, this really is I think this public facing message that President Biden is facing is really at the core, the White House strategy here. And that is making it very clear to Russians, the leaders in Russia, just how dire the consequences would be there. And I think the other thing that, of course, is happening is that President Biden is leaning on what he talked about when he was campaigning, and that is a number of highly experienced individuals within the administration being able to use the information that they have and the knowledge and the knowledge that they have about Russia, about Ukraine, to really try to game this out in the Tiger Team that Ashley, of course, has been writing about.
JANSING: Yeah, let`s talk a little bit more about that Tiger Team, Ashley, because that reporting is so important part of this, obviously, is the messaging. It`s what we saw from the President today. But there is also knowing that if A happens, we`re ready with B, if C happens, we`re ready with D, even acknowledging that you can never game out for everything. Tell us what you know about the preps?
PARKER: That`s exactly right. There`s sort of two tracks to think about this. The first is what`s playing out in public diplomacy, deterrence, these information wars. And the second, which I reported on with my colleague today, is this Tiger Team that the White House stood up internally. And the main goal was basically to say, while everyone is else is focused on preventing the worst-case scenario, we are going to plan for the worst-case scenario. So, it is an interagency effort that synthesized, you know, dozens of papers and intelligence community assessments, and basically looked at what happens -- if Russia invades what happens on day one, what happens on day two, what happens on week one and week two?
And they looked at a couple of different scenarios for an invasion. So, something from a limited incursion to something for a more full-throated invasion, where they seek to depose the government and maybe occupy a part if not all of Ukraine. And then as you laid out, they sort of looked at second order consequences. So, they looked most at events that they believe would be high impact, but also high probability so likely to happen. And said, OK, if Russia does A and we do B, what`s the second order consequence? So then what is C? What is Russia then do? And how do we respond to that?
And they also looked at what they call these "black swan" events, which are things that are not actually related to these iterative WarGames between the U.S. and Russia. But what if, while all this is going on, for instance, there is a new virulent deadlier strain of Coronavirus. What if there is an energy crisis that has nothing to do with Russia and Ukraine? How do we handle that? How does this affect the situation and in talking into NSE officials their overall assessment was this is a playbook that we hope never to use but we are deeply glad to have it. And even just the process of building it, help them prepare for other eventualities and scenarios that they might not have anticipated. But by doing tabletop exercises, including one at the cabinet level, these issues and red flags would pop up and they could address them.
[23:10:25]
JANSING: Yeah, you mean, I mean, actually laid that out really well, the complexities of what this administration is facing? What could influence, what happens with Russia, but also the White House is just juggling other key issues, inflation, the pandemic, of course, the Supreme Court vacancy? What`s the mood like in the White House with all these issues converging right now?
ALCINDOR: Well, the message that I hear from White House officials consistently is that this is what presidents have to deal with that the part of the reason why Joe Biden ran, this is their message to me is that he could juggle all of these things at the same time. That being said, you have to understand, at least in theory, and talking to some sources as well, that there is this feeling that they are dealing with a number of issues that they thought might be better, when you think about COVID in the pandemic. Of course, no one could say that the pandemic was going to be going on this long, and that you were going to get new variants and sub variants. So that`s something that they`re dealing with. Of course, inflation is another thing hitting a 40 year high. That of course, while of course, White House have to deal with all sorts of economic issues. That, of course, is another issue.
And then you have, of course, for all the things that could be happening in Russia and could be happening in Ukraine?
When I talk to White House officials while they`re trying to game out all of the different things that can happen. The consistent message also is that Vladimir Putin is someone who will do what he thinks is in his best interest. And he is someone who cannot and who -- people cannot sort of guess what he`s going to do, that he and in and of himself ended up who he is, is someone who is hard to sort of pin down when it comes to strategy and day to day thinking and what he wants to do. So, I think all these things are in some ways, adding to sort of maybe a little bit of anxiety at the White House. But I also get the sense that they feel like they want to continue to have the message be that they are confident that they`re able to juggle all these things.
Of course, Republicans and others are sort of attacking President Biden as you sort of talked about it and hinted at, but in some ways, this is the White House that is overwhelmed. But the sense I`m getting, talking to sources is that they`re just a number of people working on nerve issues. And this is the American life that and the world life that President Biden has to deal with.
JANSING: And that is not all that`s happening in Washington. Chuck, want to ask you about this latest round of subpoenas from the January six committee over these alternate electors. What is the committee appear to be zeroing in on right now?
CHUCK ROSENBERG, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, in my view, Chris, they are zero in on one of the most desperate and dangerous aspects of the insurrection. You know, what happened on January 6 was awful. And the rioters who attacked members of the Capitol Police Department and the Metropolitan Police Department did horrific things that they -- we saw that. But those riots, those acts, those assaults, were never going to change the electoral vote count. It delayed it, but it wasn`t going to change it. But this scheme of introducing alternate electors into the mix was deeply, deeply dangerous.
Chris, it didn`t work, of course. Joe Biden was duly elected president. And that was ratified on January 6, ultimately. But if alternate electors were sent on separate slates to the National Archives and to the Congress, and those votes were actually counted, and thank goodness they were not, it could have undone an American election. And so, when the January 6 committee ultimately issues its report later this year, this is the chapter I`m going to turn to first, this is the thing that was so dangerous. We remember the images. They are burned in our brains. But this thing if it worked, alternate electors could have undone a democracy.
JANSING: So, we also -- we reported on this extensively last night, Chuck, you know, Donald Trump`s accounting firm breaking with him, breaking with Trump Org., does it or how does it, this decision complicate Trump`s many legal challenges, including the fact that they said that the last, what, decade of the accounting isn`t reliable anymore?
ROSENBERG: Yeah, it`s so interesting, Chris. So, in and of itself, the fact that the accounting firm has said that they no longer stand behind their financial statements is interesting, but it`s not evidence, right? It`s not evidence of a crime. The evidence of the crime, if there is a crime would be the stuff on the documents, not what the accounting firm says about its view of the documents. It`s interesting. It may be probative, but the evidence is what those numbers actually are and how they were derived.
[23:15:01]
That said, it`s not typical for an accounting firm to retreat from the positions it took, right? So, Trump relied on those finance statements, those documents to obtain loans, to obtain credit, lots of banks, lots of lenders relied on them, too. This happens in criminal tax cases. And I used to prosecute those when I was a federal prosecutor. You always want to talk to the accountants.
Chris, did they compile the information that went to the banks or went to the IRS? Or did they audit the information? When you compile it, you rely on the taxpayer, on the organization, on the individual, on Trump, when you audit it, you go behind the numbers, and you look at it yourself. This was a compilation. And what the accounting firm is saying very clearly by withdrawing their support for those documents is, hey, wasn`t us, if there`s a problem, we didn`t audit it, we relied on the Trump Organization and on Trump. If you got a problem with these documents, look at them.
JANSING: Ashley, you covered Trump`s campaign all four years of his White House. All right, look, it`s no surprise that he pushed back on the accounting firms decision. But is there anything in his past that would suggest to us that he`d be feeling the pressure, the legal walls closing in at all?
PARKER: Well, speaking from his past, generally, when the covering him, there were a couple of red lines that would always make them particularly angry. And those could be especially dangerous for him, especially when he was president. Because when he was angry, he would sometimes do and say things that, you know, to put it politely amounted to self-sabotage. And one of those red lines was his family. Another red line was finances. And obviously, the board, which is the family business hit squarely at the nexus of both. So, in general, if something is touches on the family, and his business and his business named after himself, this family to answer your original question, would he be feeling that he would absolutely be feeling frustrated and advocate right now.
JANSING: And finally, Chuck, we only have about a minute left. But we found out today that Sarah Palin`s libel claim against the New York Times was rejected. You`ve been following this case? Tell us what you think?
ROSENBERG: Yes, cases rise or fall on the facts here. And one of the facts that Palin had to establish the wind, Chris, was at the New York Times acted with actual malice, actual malice is the key. She just flat out, could not prove that that`s all stems from an old, 50-year-old Supreme Court case called Sullivan. And so, no surprise that we learned in this case that the New York Times was sloppy that it`s editorializing, was rush. It wasn`t a pretty picture. But the key and the reason Palin lost is that she could not establish in the civil case that the New York Times acted with actual malice.
JANSING: Chuck Rosenberg, Ashley Parker, Yamiche Alcindor -- Yamiche, I know you were ready to jump in and if my throat didn`t recover, so I appreciate that. And thanks to all of you for hanging in there with me appreciate it.
Coming up, we`re going to talk to former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes about what we did and did not hear from the President in his remarks on Russia. And why that`s so significant.
Later today, new reporting on how the January 6 committee is planning to hold hearings for a public that frankly is already heard a lot about the former president. Eugene Robinson and Mark McKinnon break down what`s at stake for the select panel in telling the story of January 6. The 11th Hour just getting underway on a Tuesday night.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:22:13]
BIDEN: If Russia targets Americans in Ukraine, we will respond forcefully. And if Russia attacks the United States or our Allies through asymmetric means, like disruptive cyberattacks against our companies or critical infrastructure, we are prepared to respond.
We`re moving in lockstep with our NATO Allies and partners to deepen our collective defense against threats in cyberspace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JANSING: Today, the President making clear the U.S. is prepared to defend its allies against potential Russian aggression. Yet Vladimir Putin`s motives have remained elusive.
The New York Times summing it up this way. Putin`s calculus according to a U.S. official is likely shifting as he weighs the changing cost of an invasion. And he assesses what he could get from negotiations. Putin, who began his career as a KGB officer is a particular challenge because he avoids electronic devices, oftentimes bans note-takers, and tells us a little, there is a limit to how much intelligence agency can learn about his intentions and thinking.
With us tonight, Ben Rhodes, former Deputy National Security Adviser for President Obama. His latest book is After the Fall: Being American in the World We`ve Made.
Good to see you, Ben. Perfect person to talk to right now. Because you were in those meetings during the Obama administration. So, take us behind the scenes, what it`s like negotiating with Vladimir Putin, and trying to nail down his motives and influences moves.
BEN RHODES, FORMER DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, I think the important thing about being in the room with Vladimir Putin and I was in like the phone calls, like the bilateral meetings with them, including in the Ukraine, crises after 2014. First of all, he will lie. He will lie with ease. And so, when you see him changing his tone, I think it`s important as President Biden said today, that you have to verify that by monitoring his action.
I think the other thing that he will often do in meetings, is he will steer the conversation to his list of grievances. You will be raising things like why are you amassing troops around the Ukrainian border? He will give you a litany of the history of what he believes is an effort to humiliate Russia. The expansion and enlargement of NATO, that kind of dismissal of Russian concerns. There`s a lot of what about ism from Vladimir Putin, he wants to argument and the negotiation to be entirely on his terms, not your terms. And I think what President Biden was trying to do in that speech today, what he`s been trying to do throughout this crisis, is center this crisis on what Putin is doing around Ukraine, and not on the demands that Putin is making. And I think that`s the only thing you can do with Vladimir Putin is yet to drive the negotiation, the conversation to the reality on the ground that you`re trying to deal with, and not get drawn into his version of reality, which is one in which the U.S. sensory either has to make a significant amount of concessions or he`s going to potentially invade a sovereign country.
[23:25:06]
JANSING: So, to that point, you were also former speechwriter for President Obama, you fully understand the importance of carefully crafting such potentially high stakes remarks. I wonder what you make of what the President said today, as well as maybe what he chose not to say?
RHODES: I was very struck, Chris, by the tone today, because they did have a choice. They could have reacted to kind of Putin`s recent fades towards diplomacy. And he did President Biden at the beginning, say, of course, that`s our preference. And he laid out the terms on which the U.S. is prepared to discuss a range of things around European security and troop deployments and missile deployments. But it did not sound like a president who truly believe this sincerity of Vladimir Putin`s recent more diplomatic words.
He seemed like a president who was trying to prepare the United States, the Russian people and the world for the consequences of a Russian invasion. He spoke at length about the potential costs and consequences to the American people, why this should matter to them, both because of the principles at stake in Ukraine, but also, because of the fact that if we impose sanctions on Russia, that could have an impact on our economy. Russia could choose to engage in cyber-attacks on U.S. businesses, and U.S. infrastructure, most extremely as you played in your clip, Russia could choose to target Americans who are in Ukraine, or to further try to destabilize American allies.
And so, this was a president was trying to lay out for people, not just his position, and not just his approach to diplomacy, which is one in which he`s willing to negotiate, but not willing to make certain compromises that go beyond his comfort level. This was the President trying to prepare the American public for what could be a very difficult foreign policy challenge, the likes of which we haven`t seen in a long time in terms of a war in Europe, and one that could rebound on the American people in a variety of different ways.
JANSING: So, compare contrast for us. Now, in 2014, I was talking about this with Clint Watts this morning, he was, you know, talking about the preparations that we`ve read about, that Joe Biden has made, that we talked about in our last segment. And what you think, how you think, how well prepared this administration is right now?
RHODES: Well, there`s an enormous set of differences from 2014. The similarities is, it`s Ukraine, and it`s Russian aggression in Ukraine. But what happened in 2014, was after a pro-Russian president was essentially chased out of office by popular protest, Vladimir Putin very quickly moved pretty small number of special forces into Crimea, which is a region of Ukraine where they already had a Russian military base. And they did not meet any resistance. There wasn`t a lot of fighting in Crimea, and he annexed it. And that led him to get a big boost of popularity at home, and then led us in the Obama administration to work with Europeans to try to fortify the rest of Ukrainian democracy against Russian aggression and impose sanctions and response.
What`s different this time is there`s been this ramp up, this deployment of 150,000 troops in circling Ukraine, threatening an invasion, a military operation, that is far more significant and substantial than anything that was faced in 2014.
Now, what I think the Biden team has done very well, with that time is, number one, warn people about what they`re seeing declassified intelligence, help people, what Putin is up to, so that he cannot fabricate a free pack, where Russia has to engage in a military operation, because of some defensive rationale that they`ve cooked up.
Putin has been, you know, that has been removed from Putin as a possible tool. And then secondly, they`ve been able to essentially prepare, how they would respond, what sanctions that they can get the Europeans to sign up for, the kinds of sanctions President Biden discussed today, export controls, to deny Russia important technologies, things on their banks that could really hit hard at the wealth that Putin depends upon, and frankly, make life more difficult for the Russian people. So, they use the time of this military buildup to do I think prudent things in warning the world about what food is up to and preparing a set of consequences to try to shape foods incentives and disincentives to act. However, they don`t get the final vote.
Vladimir Putin is the only man who knows whether or not there`s going to be an invasion of Ukraine. And so inevitably, you`re going to be reacting.
JANSING: Ben Rhodes, always good to see you. Thank you. We appreciate your time tonight.
RHODES: Thanks, Chris.
JANSING: Coming up the challenges ahead for the select committee in telling the story of January 6, our political experts are here to discuss what`s at stake in the upcoming public hearings when the 11th Hour continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:33:21]
JANSING: As the January 6 committee collects evidence and conducts interviews, plenty of thought is going into the public hearings. As NBC News reports, the challenge may be keeping the interest of a Trump weary public, "members of the committee envision hearings that they hope will prove too riveting to ignore. They are banking on wall-to-wall coverage on cable news, headlines on new sites and a constant churn on social media. What`s not at all certain is that a mass audience cares to watch."
Back with us Eugene Robinson, Pulitzer Prize Winning Columnist for the Washington Post and Mark McKinnon, former Adviser to both George W. Bush and John McCain. He`s also among the co-hosts of the Circus on Showtime.
Hey, guys, Mark, you know, people could argue that folks are tired of hearing about January 6, a lot of Republicans don`t think there`s anything there. The public already sat through a couple of public impeachments. So, what does the committee need to do, I guess, first to get an audience to watch these hearings, and through that show the importance of why they think all this work mattered?
MARK MCKINNON, FORMER ADVISER TO JOHN MCCAIN & GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, A, it`s got to be tightly scripted, B there`s got to be new information that the public hasn`t heard or seen before. I think probably the most significant evidence that we`re hearing about lately is the notion that false electors were set up. That`s a significant piece, I think that the public needs to know about.
The question is, will it break through into the broader universe of the Republican ecosystem? And my concern is that Democrats that I know always conveniently think that something from the past, some sins of the Republican passed are going to save them from their democratic future. And sort of rely on past sins of Republicans rather than forging ahead with policies for voters for the future and just relying on the sins of the past. And that`s what I worry about.
[23:35:11]
And additionally, Chris, I just say that, you know, if a year of audits that have come up with nothing, if anything, that there were more of those for Biden, if the attorney general of the United States and the chief elections officer said that there was a free and fair election, and multiple laws, it`s a millions of dollars spent, if that hasn`t changed, Republican minds, in fact, 70 up to 75% of the Republican electorate still thinks that electric is a fraud. I`m just not sure that long, extended hearings, well, convinced more than it could make it worse.
JANSING: So, Eugene, what`s at stake here for the Democrats and what are the chances that they get it wrong? I mean, it depends on I guess what your definition of the word wrong is, but that it just turns out to be a nothing burger?
EUGENE ROBINSON, THE WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST: Well, I think, Chris, you got to remember, there are two reasons for doing this, right? And yes, the political certainly does count. I`ll talk about that in the middle minute. But there is also history to think about, I mean, we need to know what happened, why it happened, how it happened, who organized it, who planned it, who paid for it? We need to know all that stuff. History needs to know all that stuff.
So, there`s work that the committee has to do whether or not anybody pays attention. However, I -- look if you got the goods, you`ll get the audience. And I think this committee has really done quite a good job of interviewed 500 witnesses, 1000s and 1000s of documents. The tidbits that have come out so far, have included new information. And I -- so I, you know, I`m not so sort of downcast about what impact the hearings might have. Because, you know, let`s see what the committee has. I mean, they`re really serious about what they`re doing. And if they have new information, it will grab people`s attention and people will watch.
JANSING: We`ve been talking a lot, Mark, about how the former president has been dividing the GOP, this issue, but the President in particular, this was Maryland Governor, Larry Hogan over the weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. LARRY HOGAN, (R) MARYLAND: I`m concerned about the direction of the party in the country. And I`ll make a decision about 2024 after I finished this job.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, you are considering it?
HOGAN: Well, so we`re certainly going to take a look at it after January of `23.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JANSING: I guess the big question, Mark, is there really a lane for a moderate Republican from a blue state to take on Trump or someone like him?
MCKINNON: You may, a lane for the truth. I sure hope so. You know, I think that I`ve been preaching for a long time that the problem with Donald Trump is that he does have a stranglehold on the base of the Republican Party, controls the primaries, and likely will help people win primaries and will likely win the nomination itself. But he can`t win a general election. He couldn`t win in 2020. And not only lose the presidency, but the house in the Senate given what we know going forward, it`s hard to imagine how he wins going forward.
So, my advice to Republicans is get Donald Trump off the windshield, put them in the rearview mirror. Look at the Virginia governor`s race as an example of a Republican running by putting, keeping Trump at arm`s length and seeing what can happen in a typically democratic state or a Republican one. So, I think if the Republicans are smart and get Trump in the rearview mirror, I`ve got a lot more upshot. And I, you know, Larry Hogan, I think is a great voice for that and I hope he runs and there`ll be a lane we`ll just see how wide it gets.
JANSING: Mark Eugene, we hope you`ll stay with us through the break.
Just ahead, the dilemma Democrats now face in the search for an economic message to campaign on.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:41:54]
JANSING: As the party in power Democrats will likely face an uphill battle in the midterms no matter what. But now, in new polling that a Washington post op-ed describes as brutal. Voters say they trust Republicans more to handle key economic factors from inflation, economic growth to rebuilding the economy.
And columnist Greg Sargent writes, Democrats put themselves in a political straitjacket, writing, "They regularly tell themselves they must be extraordinarily tentative about taking credit for their accomplishments. Because this risks angering voters who are still struggling."
Still with us, Eugene Robinson, Mark McKinnon. Eugene, that brutal poll showed voters were more supportive of Democrats after being reminded of key economic indicators that, frankly, the President just spoke about today. Let me play that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: My first year in office, more jobs are created than ever any time in American history, 6.6 million jobs. Now, you, folks, look, we had the strongest economic growth, nearly 40 years 5.7% increase in the GDP, our unemployment rate dropped more than any time any year in American history. Child poverty dropped by 40% more than any year in American history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JANSING: So, Eugene, is that what Democrats need to do? Or is it as long as inflation is where it is that message is unlikely to break through?
ROBINSON: Well, yes, and maybe. I mean, look, yes, there`s a lot of great economic numbers out there. And of course, Democrats ought to be shouting them from the rooftops. And reminding people this really incredible, very healthy economic growth and salary growth, particularly at the low end with raises with wages coming up.
Now, there`s one economic number that`s not good at all, and as long as their headlines, you know, worst month of inflation in 40 years, that`s horrible for Democrats, and they need to get out of the inflation issue to the extent that they can. If inflation is political poison, they need to be seen doing everything they can to try to get those inflation numbers down. I mean, it may be time to think about something like a gas tax holiday or something like that. But it is nobody, I think is under the illusion the president can snap his fingers and bring prices down. But they -- people do know that the President either can be seen working to get inflation down or not. And the former is much better than the latter political.
JANSING: I got a fundraising email today, Mark, about Hillary Clinton that, you know, same playbook, just different year. Having said that, is that a smart Republicans best line of attack for November ? I mean we don`t know where inflation is going, but is it going to be that? Can the Democrats counter that with the things we heard from Joe Biden today?
[23:45:13]
MCKINNON: Well, the most important thing in telling a story is that you have a story to tell. And clearly Biden does have a story to tell once you get past COVID, and past inflation. The problem is, we still have COVID, we still have inflation. COVID is getting better, we`ll see what happens with inflation.
But listen, the opposite of inflation is slow growth or no growth at all. And so that was the medicine that we chose. And I think if offered that alternative, that`s what most people would choose, even though it`s tough right now. But the reality is what people are going to make their decision on is not how they are right now, but where they think things are headed. So, if COVID, gets under control, inflation gets under control. And some of these economic numbers of Biden talked about today, pop through, and people started thinking about 2024. I think the midterms are probably a lost cause. But beyond that, I think there`s opportunity for Democrats if they could just quit litigating the past and start legislating the future with their policies and ideas about the economy and crime and all these other issues that Republicans are jumping on that are typically democratic issues.
JANSING: And finally, Eugene, a lot of us were very sad to hear this afternoon that famed political writer and longtime MSNBC guest, P.J. O`Rourke has passed away. I wanted to get your take on his legacy.
ROBINSON: Well, you know, he was just, you know, it`s such a smart guy --
JANSING: So smart.
ROBINSON: -- with incredible range, great writer. And, you know, he had a sort of, it wasn`t really out of left field, I would say, but it`s certainly a different yet rigorous view of events and of people. He was really, I think, an important figure and it`s sad to lose him, it`s sad to lose him.
JANSING: And often a sense of humor that got us through some of the more complex issues of our times, right?
ROBINSON: Yeah, absolutely.
JANSING: Our thanks to Eugene Robinson and Mark McKinnon.
And coming up, the multi-million-dollar message grieving parents sent today to the makers of guns like this when the 11th Hour continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:32]
JANSING: The families of nine Sandy Hook victims reached a $73 million settlement with gun manufacturer Remington today. This landmark victory came after a legal battle over how Remington marketed its AR-15 style rifle. In a statement President Biden`s that, "While this settlement does not erase the pain of that tragic day, it does begin the necessary work of holding gun manufacturers accountable for manufacturing weapons of war, irresponsibly marketing these firearms."
NBC News Correspondent Kate Snow has more from Connecticut tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Today is a day of accountability.
KATE SNOW, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For the families of five children and for adults lost at Sandy Hook Elementary, a victory born out of grief.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: True justice would be our 15-year-old, healthy, and standing next to us right now. But Ben will never be 15. He will be six forever.
SNOW: A $73 million settlement with Remington maker of the gun used to kill 26 people in Newtown.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We hope that our lawsuit sends a message to the gun industry.
SNOW: Through court after court for more than seven years, the families argued Remington violated a Connecticut law by marketing an AR-15 style rifle to civilians. It was a path around federal laws that protect gun manufacturers from liability, which some legal experts say could now be a roadmap for future cases.
In discovery, Remington sent 1000s of internal documents including campaigns geared toward young men, equating gun ownership with your man card.
MARK BARDEN, LOST SON: They were aggressively marketing to young men who are potentially violence prone.
SNOW: Mark Barden and his wife Jackie lost their son Daniel.
JACKIE BARDEN, LOST SON: People need to know how irresponsible the gun industry is about marketing these weapons. So that was our goal was for it to be known.
SNOW: Do you think you`ve achieved that?
J. BARDEN: Yes, I do.
SNOW: Remington did not respond to our request for comment. The families refused to settle until they won the right to release the documents publicly.
(On camera): Was that key for you?
NICOLE HOCKLEY, LOST SON: Yes, absolutely. That was critical. This has never been about money.
SNOW: Four insurance companies will pay the 73 million. Nicole Hockley, who lost her son Dylan hopes this puts them on notice too.
HOCKLEY: I worked in insurance for a number of years doing marketing for them, and this will absolutely make them change their practices.
SNOW: Change these families hope will save lives. Kate snow, NBC News, Trumbull, Connecticut.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JANSING: And coming up, powerful words from the U.S. Olympic gold medalist on the controversy surrounding Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva when the 11th Hour continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:57:26]
JANSING: The last thing before we go tonight, former Olympic athletes, a lot of them fiercely critical after 15-year-old Russian skater Kamila Valieva was allowed to continue competing in the Beijing Games, despite testing positive last month for a banned substance.
And the New York Times is now reporting that two other substances sometimes used to help the heart were also found in her system. The chief executive of the United States anti-doping agency told The Times, "It`s a trifecta of substances, two of which are allowed and one that is not allowed." He added that the benefits of such a combination seemed to be aimed at increasing endurance, reducing fatigue and promoting greater efficiency in using oxygen.
Valieva did skate this morning in the short program and is well in the lead in spite of an early stumble. But if she`s in the top three, after Thursday`s free skate, Olympic officials say there will be no medal ceremony until a full investigation is complete. I spoke with Olympic gold medalist Scott Hamilton shortly after Valieva took to the ice this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SCOTT HAMILTON, OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALIST: I think if you have a positive drug test, you don`t compete and the fact that this is going on and everybody else has to sacrifice their Olympic moments for an athlete they came in testing positive just seems ludicrous to me. And I think it`s massively unfair to the rest of the event who comes in clean, who comes in honest. And you know, I look back on my Olympic experience, the whole right side of my head was just, I was sick as a dog. And I said, can I take anything to dry up my head, and they said absolutely not. And I was like, OK, I just can`t hear out on my right ear. And I can`t -- I don`t have any balance, but I`ll do my best. And, you know, it`s no, it`s those kinds of experiences keep clean. It`s like everybody in our Olympic gold medal chat that we have going during the Olympics with every athlete that in the United States has ever won a gold medal. And they`re like, we got to do something. We got to say something and it`s like, yes, we do. And it`s we all skated clean. We all skated to the best of our abilities, and we rested on our training, not anything that might be performance enhancing in the fact that the Russians have cheated in the past blatantly cheated in the past. And here we are, again. I don`t know why there`s any hesitation at all just to say, OK, irreparable harm, maybe the irreparable harm is to the Olympic movement, and not just one athlete, and I just never seen anything like this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JANSING: Frustrated, Scott Hamilton, 1984 figure skating gold medalist to take us off the air tonight. That is our broadcast for this Tuesday night with our thanks for being with us. On behalf of all of my colleagues at the networks of NBC News, good night.