Summary
We have reached the point where Republican candidates for statewide office are running on an explicitly pro-coup platform. Marjorie Taylor- Greene has now become one of the most influential figures in all Republican politics and a highly coveted endorsement for party`s candidates. National Archives seeks DOJ probe of former President Trump`s document conduct. Ukraine says it is almost fully surrounded now by hostile forces with Russian troops.
Transcript
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: I do not have a dog in the fight in terms of who wins this football game. I am just going for the halftime show because the halftime show will be from the greatest musical era ever. I cannot wait to see the halftime show. That is tonight`s "REIDOUT." I hope you guys all enjoy the game. Whoever you`re rooting for, I hope they win. See, I`m even, fair and square.
ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES starts now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voiceover): Tonight on ALL IN.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m going back for people that are improperly prosecuted with respect to these genuine January 6 insurrection.
HAYES: These are the people who want to run your government.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In a lot of ways, people at the Capitol in January 6 were heroes and trying to preserve who was actually elected.
HAYES: Tonight, the Republicans campaigning on anti-democratic platforms across the states.
Then, beyond the burning and the flushing, the knockdown drag-out fight for the National Archives to recover Trump documents.
And the starkest signal yet that a Russian invasion could be imminent.
JAKE SULLIVAN, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: We want to be crystal clear on this point. Any American in Ukraine should leave as soon as possible and in any event in the next 24 to 48 hours.
HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now. Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. We have reached the point where Republican candidates for statewide office are running on an explicitly pro-coup platform. I`m going to play some really shocking clips from Minnesota where that is on display in the attorney general`s race in that state. But it shouldn`t be that surprising.
As I keep saying, Republican politicians cannot dodge this fundamental question at the core of American democracy and politics. They cannot straddle the divide between supporting democracy and supporting Donald Trump and his coup. Of course, some have tried.
Do you remember that bizarre moment last fall during the race for the governor of Virginia when attendees at a rally for Republican statewide candidates pledged allegiance to a flag flown on January 6 at the Capitol.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I also want to invite Kim from Chesapeake. She`s carrying an American flag that was carried at the peaceful rally with Donald J. Trump on January 6. I asked you all -- I asked you all to rise and join us as Mark Lloyd leads us in the pledge.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: OK, that was creepy and weird. And the now-Governor Glenn Youngkin, then-candidate, did not attend that live stream rally but Donald Trump called in urging everyone listening to vote for Youngkin and the other Republican candidates.
In the following day after his Democratic opponent called on him to condemn what happened, Youngkin issued a statement saying it was quote weird and wrong to pledge allegiance to a flag connected to January 6. He also called the violence that occurred on January 6, sickening and wrong.
In the end, the Youngkin campaign was able to have their cake and eat it too. They got the support of pro-coup Republicans in Virginia while the candidate maintained his image as the non-threatening dad and the fleece fast.
Now, as it turns out, one of the new appointees in our Republican administration that shared a slate with Youngkin was explicitly pro insurrection. Get this. Yesterday, the Deputy Attorney General of Virginia, Monique Miles resigned after the Washington Post revealed her Facebook posts praising the insurrections and claiming Donald Trump won the election.
The Attorney General`s Office claims they were unaware of the posts like this one from January 6. "Newsflash, patriots have stormed the Capitol. No surprise, the Deep State has awoken the sleeping giant. Patriots are not taking this lying down. We are awake, ready, and we`ll fight for our rights by any means necessary."
Any means necessary. Miles later refer to the riot as a "peaceful protest" in response to someone who commented on that post, which is a little intention with the by any means necessary and the cops getting beaten across the head.
And back in November, after Joe Biden was declared the winner, this same Deputy Attorney General of Virginia until a few days ago, wrote these left- wing violent loonies better realize that Donald Trump is getting a second term. Now, Miles told The Washington Post the posts were taken out of context and that she does believe Biden is our president.
Now, at least Monique Miles was not saying these things in a public campaign. She wasn`t campaigning on this platform. She made the posts on a personal account. But of course, that`s the next logical step. And we are already seeing that inaction right now in Minnesota.
So, this is a video I referenced. It`s from a Republican Primary Candidates Forum at the end of last month. It has gone viral for very good reason. It begins with an absolutely wild question posed to the candidates for attorney general about what they would do to help Minnesotans who participated in the insurrection.
[20:05:02]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Currently there are eight Minnesotans being persecuted and prosecuted for exercising their constitutional rights by attending the January 6 rally in Washington D.C. in 2021. Some of those people are in this room tonight. As the top lawyer for the state whose residents are having their rights violated by the federal government, if elected, what can you do for them?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, you got all that, right? That there are Minnesotans who are in prison for their role and they`re being persecuted, their rights are being violated. Basically, these are political prisoners. She doesn`t quite use that term, but that`s the gist of the question.
Now, I should note that three of those eight Minnesotans being prosecuted for rioting the Capitol have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers. Two of the three have been charged with using a dangerous weapon. But that`s the question, OK.
The first candidate to answer that bonkers question was a man named Doug Wardlow. Now, Doug workflows making his second run for attorney general after losing to current Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison back in 2018.
Wardlow serves as general counsel for, of all places, the My Pillow Company. As you can see here, Warlow was happy to get the endorsement of the MAGA pillow man himself, Mike Lindell, who is currently facing multiple defamation suits for spreading patently false claims about election fraud. And Doug Wardlow is happy to defend the insurrectionists too.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOUG WARDLOW (R-MN) ATTORNEY GENERAL CANDIDATE: As the top legal and law enforcement officer in the state, as the attorney general, we can do a lot to fight federal government overreach by the federal government when they are usurping our constitutional rights, usurping the right of the state, or violating the rights of the citizens of the state.
So as your attorney general, I will stand up for our constitutional rights. I`ll go to bat for people that are improperly prosecuted with respect to the January 6 incident and we will push back against the Federal government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: OK. Now, that`s interesting language. It`s strong language, but it`s also pretty precise and careful. Like he sort of realizes what he`s doing. He says, I`ll go to bat for people that were improperly prosecuted, right? It gives them a little bit of a fallback position. He`s aware enough -- this guy has run for statewide office -- not to be to explicitly pro-coup but to give the people in the audience what they want. He walks the line pretty well, even though he`s ultimately feeding that frenzy.
The next candidate, though, recognizes that there`s space to his right -- this is the dynamic in a Republican primary -- and goes even further with her support of the Trump coup. Now, her name is Lynne Torgerson, a Minnesota name if ever I`ve seen one. She`s a criminal defense attorney who refers to herself as a second amendment lawyer, and she has January 6 attendees on her payroll.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LYNNE TORGERSON (R-MN), ATTORNEY GENERAL CANDIDATE: First, I should note that I have at least two people on my staff who were participants in January 6. And quite honestly, it seemed at that time that the election of Joe Biden was actually somewhat of a coup, and that the truth -- that the person who won was President Trump.
And so, I think in a lot of ways the people at the Capitol on January 6 were heroes and trying to preserve who was actually elected.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: I mean, just take a second to reckon -- this is a woman running for Attorney General Minnesota after the last guy says like, I`ll stick up for those who are being prosecuted. She says, no, no, no, no, I can do even better. We have coup attendees on our staff and Joe Biden was a coup, OK.
Now, of course, we already have pro coup members of Congress like Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who call the alleged insurrections political prisoners. She has now become one of the most influential figures in all Republican politics and a highly coveted endorsement for party`s candidates.
Republican authors tell the Daily Beast the Greene`s endorsement in competitive House and Senate primaries is not only considered as welcome, but also is one that should be actively courted, particularly in races where the nominees likely to be decided by which candidate most animates the Trumpist grassroots.
And we`ve already seen that happening with the Congressman`s endorsement of Ohio Senate candidate JD Vance who rolled out greens backing like a victory lap last month amid faltering poll numbers which by the way, continue to fall. Now, this is really just the beginning of the midterm season. We`re going to see a lot more explicitly pro-coup campaigning as this year goes on.
Asawin Subsaeng is the Senior Political Reporter with The Daily Beast. He wrote that piece about Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene`s coveted endorsement. Liz Landers is the Chief Political Correspondent of Vice News. Her latest piece is about proponents of The Big Lie campaigning to run state elections. And both join me now.
Asawin, let me start with you on the Marjorie Taylor Greene thing. I have watched this happen in which it is just very evident that this person who comes to office and is viewed as fringe, freak show, other Republicans kind of want to keep their distance other than Matt Gaetz, has essentially like send it into a kind of vanguard of the party where the dynamic is now inverted and you can feel leadership essentially following her rather than the other way around.
[20:10:11]
ASAWIN SUEBSAENG, SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER, THE DAILY BEAST: Oh, absolutely. And in a way, you just described Donald Trump himself in 2015, 2016, and 2017. But with Marjorie Taylor Greene, it might seem a little bizarre, shall we say, for a lot of your viewers, even the ones who have rock bottom assessments of the current moral or political state of the Republican Party that she is actually a player in the endorsement game when it comes to 2022 Republican primaries, even for a Republican Party, where the current gold standard of an endorsement is from a twice-impeached former president, currently a one-term loser president and someone who presided over the Coronavirus hell that we`re still living through today and who also led a failed coup in Washington D.C.
HAYES: Right.
SUEBSAENG: Even with that being the gold standard of what it means to get a Republican endorsement today in these primaries, it might seem a little bit weird that this former or -- well, former if you want to believe her and her staff spin, former QAnon lady has emerged as an actual coveted endorsement, but that is the current state of the Republican Party.
This isn`t an exaggeration at all on behalf of a "liberal media," these are Republican operatives working on these campaigns who are telling us we want her endorsement. And these are not fringe candidates, these are the mainstream candidates.
HAYES: Yes. And what she offers which I think is key, and actually, you saw a little in the dynamic in that room in Minnesota is she`s not faking it. Whatever you say about Marjorie Taylor Greene, that`s very much who she is. She is not trying to appeal to some group that is other than her, which a lot of these Republican candidates I think are essentially. Marjorie Taylor Greene is that person, 100 percent. No artifice about it. And that`s, I think part of what they want out of her.
You say that since taking office in January 2021, Greene has raised over $7 million making her one of the most prolific fundraisers in the entire House. That largess has not yet extended to the candidate she`s backing.
Liz, you wrote a great piece for Vice about rounding up folks that believe the election was stolen or illegitimate who are running for state office. At least 27 states you write will elect new secretary of state. There are 21 people running who think Trump won in 2020 and have pushed for overturning election results or spread other lies about the election. How mainstream or how plausible are these as candidates or are these just like gadflies who no one is going to vote for?
LIZ LANDERS, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, VICE NEWS: Chris, I would say that some of these people are mainstream. And I do think that some of them, especially some that we spoke with for this piece for breaking the vote series on Vice, we spoke with these candidates like Mark Finchem from Arizona because he is fundraising a lot of money right now, and he`s endorsed by President Trump. Same with Jody Hice in Georgia.
Both of them come from states that are key swing states, Arizona and Georgia, that Trump lost last time. And in the case of Hice, he`s running against probably the only secretary of state that your viewers might know by name, Brad Raffensperger who was the one who told Donald Trump that he, you know, would not find those 11,000 votes that he lost by in that state.
Those two candidates seem to have a pretty good chance of winning their primaries and potentially going on to win the Secretary of State positions there. Secretary of state roles are not something that I think people usually focused on when they`re going into the ballot box during the midterm elections. But it matters this year because we saw President Trump just a few weeks ago put out that video to the Pennsylvania Republicans where he said that the people who are counting the votes are the ones who matter. Secretary of State candidates are the ones who are going to be counting the votes in 2024.
HAYES: Yes. And your point there is really important, just to reiterate what you`re saying. I mean, these are people that in in both Arizona and Georgia, there`s two examples of the Secretary of State, they have a very good shot of winning the Republican primary. If they do that, they will be the nominee, and they will be in a statewide in a midterm year, that`s going to be very favorable to Republicans in a very close state.
Like, they could very much be the next Secretary of State. That`s not -- by no means. And in fact, in Minnesota, right, Doug Wardlow, the guy who was the first one who spoke who said, you know, I`ll step up to fight back against federal overreach, he only lost by four points in 2018. He`s running for a second time.
He`s also like, completely a plausible statewide candidate who would be attorney general in the event of like a `22 or `24 election. And Asawin, on the sort of big lie and more explicitly a kind of pro coup platform, There are very few Republicans who can quite bring themselves to say what Donald Trump will say, which is that Election Day was a real coup. The interaction was good actually, those people are patriots and heroes, which is basically the Trump position.
Marjorie Taylor green is one of the few I think who come the closest and that also I have to imagine is part of what her allure is and part of why everyone`s chasing her endorsement.
[20:15:16]
SUEBSAENG: Oh, at least partially, yes, definitely. And she still has the benefit of having direct access to and the ear of former President Trump who has, of course, continued on and as the undisputed leader of the GOP.
And also to your big lie and anti-Democratic allies point earlier, we reported at The Daily Beast just a little under a year ago, shortly after Donald Trump stepped out of office, that he had told close advisor and aides that he wanted it to be told to people groveling to him, seeking his endorsement, that ahead of the critical 2022 races that he would prefer to not endorse candidates who didn`t in some form or another back his position on the 2020 election, which of course is a position that it was rigged, which is, of course, complete baloney.
And this was something that not just Republican candidates, but the RNC have, even if they`re being crew adjacent in their rhetoric and not completely full on coop, who was Donald Trump is, has been more than happy to not just privately but very, very publicly acknowledge as their standard operating procedure, a full year passed since January 6.
So, again, the entirety of the Republican apparatus in this country is rallying around that, even if they`re not being nearly as vociferous about it as say, Marjorie Taylor.
HAYES: Quick question for you to close on, Liz. did you find -- are there primary candidates in Republican primaries taking the other side aggressively? I think Raffensperger is one of them because he kind of has to and has no other choice. But it strikes me there`s not much upside for anyone else, they can kind of dodge it. But you`re not going to see a lot of people coming out and saying the election was legitimate. That`s my position.
LANDERS: No, you`re exactly right. I think Raffensperger -- and we spoke with Raffensperger for this story, because he really is one of the only Republicans who is running for secretary of state who is saying The Big Lie is not true because he was the vote counter for last time and he didn`t find those 11,000 votes.
So, I think that, you know, when we`re looking at these candidates, if these Republicans running in these primaries are more extreme, leaning more towards the big guy -- which by the way, I think Asawin was kind of just mentioning this, I think that`s kind of a litmus test for the party right now that basically, you kind of have to agree with the big lie in order to get Trump`s endorsement.
And to, you know, make it out of and move out of your primary, I think if those candidates who are backing the big lie, move out of their primary races, they have a very good chance of winning in several of these states right now.
HAYES: Asawin Suebsaeng and Liz Landers, thank you both.
LANDERS: Thanks.
HAYES: From burn bag says the Pentagon, to documents flushed down a White House toilet, it`s been a wild week in the world of Trump investigations. Up next, the reporter who has been breaking news on this story from the beginning on what details she thinks everyone is missing after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:20:00]
HAYES: Throughout this entire week, we`ve gotten one story after another about Donald Trump`s what`s a problematic handling of White House Records. It started with revelation on Monday that the National Archives had to retrieve 15 boxes of documents that Trump stash at Mar-a-Lago.
The Washington Post later reported that those boxes included classified materials, some of which were marked as top secret. We`ve learned that Trump had a habit of shredding documents they had to be taped back together. This week, we learned he had bags filled with documents for burning in burn bags.
White House Records staff had to reportedly search these burn bags to find material that needed to be preserved. And of course, there`s this amazing bit of reporting about the toilet. When Trump was in office, the staff in the residence I guess reportedly would find wads of printed paper clogging a toilet in the residence, leading them to believe that Trump had been trying to literally flush documents.
Well, now we have more on that. The Times is reporting that he had the same habit on the road reportedly known to do the same on foreign trips. All they got so bad that as we`re learning, the National Archives reportedly threatened the ex-president with going to Congress and the Department Justice.
And this explains why this week, the National Archives actually did that. They reached out the Department of Justice asking them to look into whether or not Trump violated federal law mishandling of White House Records.
Jacqueline Alemany is a congressional correspondent for The Washington Post, has been reporting the story as it has developed, and she joins me now. Jacqueline, let`s start with the National Archive part of this because I find this fascinating. National Archives is not -- they`re not a branch of government. And they`re not like -- they`re usually not showing up in big fights or conflicts or showdowns, right. These are -- it`s an important role they play but it`s a bureaucratic and administrative one behind the scenes.
There must be like crazy stuff going for the National Archives to be escalating in this way and like trying everything they can to shake documents out of someone.
JACQUELINE ALEMANY, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Chris, I`m so glad you started with this point because the history nerd in me has been geeking out all week learning more and more about the National Archives and the important role that they play in our democracy.
Obviously, in the context of January 6 and really the entire modern-day platform of the Republican Party, we`ve been talking a lot about efforts to subvert democracy. But I think that this archival piece has been overlooked up until this new cycle which came about because we found out that treaded up documents were handed over to the January 6 Committee.
But while archivists are fiercely apolitical, they are truly real believers in history and really just trying to do their job regardless of for what President they`re doing it for. There is a sense that this is a serious erosion to democracy what the former president has done and the disregard he has had for all of these presidential records, the Presidential Records Act, and for whether or not documents are classified and how to properly handle documents depending on the status of their classification.
And that is what we`ve heard time and time again from the historians and the archivists that we`ve spoken with throughout the course of the week that all of this is important to keep in perspective and that erodes the confidence of that people have in the system, the system works, this President did not follow this system. And in the end, this harm can actually be real, and it`s bigger than any presidency, archivist, or government bureaucracy.
[20:25:31]
HAYES: Yes, there`s been now discussions as you report with your fellow reporters at the Post, discussions about federal law enforcement officials about whether they should investigate the former president for possible crime, according to two people familiar with the matter. You also know this which I thought was interesting that Trump was very secretive about the packing of boxes that were retrieved from Mar-a-Lago last month, and did not let other aides including some of his most senior advisors look at them according to people close to him. That detail really jumped out at me.
ALEMANY: Yes, and we still do not have any status update from the Department of Justice about whether or not they`re actually going to commence an investigation. The wages that we have reported is that there were ongoing discussions within the department after the archives had made a referral and asked the Justice Department to look into this.
So, that`s something that we`re going to be keeping a close eye on. But that little pregnant sentence of reporting that you just called out I think is important to the bigger picture of what the DOJ might potentially have to look into, which is, was this intentional and systemic or is -- was this just negligence? You know, which I guess is a big question that a lot of us have had throughout the last four or five years of Trump.
And I think it also leads us to the even bigger picture, are there more boxes? And if so, are they now endangered because there`s been so much scrutiny in the media that the former president is sort of, you know, going to cocoon and create sort of even more secretive demeanor with regards to these remaining documents?
HAYES: Yes. I mean, to your point on that, that you have reporting placing him as being very secretive about these, I mean, what`s striking to me there is, look, if you`re trying to mount a case that this was innocent, you could say, look, you know, moving out of the White House is chaotic, lots of stuff moving around, and anyone who`s ever been through a move, like, you know, there might be stuff.
But if he`s -- you know, if we know that he was actually like, aware of these boxes and what was going into them, that flies out the window. That`s very important in terms of whether this was something being handled by staff and outsourced or something that was actually at the core of his concerns.
ALEMANY: Yes, totally. And I think it is important, as you just said, to like, sort of put this into context of how the way presidencies operate, how transitions operate, especially at first term or in comparison to someone who`s finishing out a second term.
People who leave after -- the White House after a first term, things are always more chaotic. No one wants to leave. They`re upset. And the documents process and the transfer from the White House Office of records management to the actual archives can be a little more chaotic.
And there are former presidents who have over time handed over the stray classified documents that they`ve dredged out of a closet after someone has passed away. But when we`re looking at the volume here and the scale, the word that we keep hearing is extraordinary, that this is not normal, this was out of the ordinary. And regardless of intentionality or negligence, this is unlike any presidency before.
HAYES: Yes. So, then the -- to look back a few years back, I mean, the big question is, is everyone certain they have everything at this point? Can anyone render that answer definitively? And I think the answer`s no, right, I mean, as of now?
ALEMANY: Yes, you`re totally right. We got a statement from the archives earlier this week that said that they had been told by Trump`s representatives that they were going to continue looking for stray documents and handover those boxes.
So, we do not have knowledge of what exactly might be outstanding that has yet to be retrieved. But that, again, is a very suggestive and telling statement. And it`s clear that the archives are still on the lookout and in touch with the former president`s legal representatives to make sure that they get their hands on everything that they -- that belongs to the American public, really.
HAYES: All right, Jacqueline Alemany, great reporting. Thank you so much for making time with us.
ALEMANY: Thanks, Chris.
HAYES: Next, an urgent warning for Americans in Ukraine as U.S. officials announced a Russian invasion could happen any day now. The latest on rising tensions after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:34:00]
HAYES: Tonight, the White House is warning of the immediate threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine says it is almost fully surrounded now by hostile forces with Russian troops on the Eastern border and in Belarus and Russian ships blocking parts of the Black Sea.
Officials tell NBC News the Russia has already stationed 80 percent of troops it would need for a full-scale invasion.
Officials tell the New York Times the U.S. has picked up intelligence that Russia is discussing next Wednesday as the target date for the start of military action acknowledging that possibility that mentioning a particular date could be part of a Russian disinformation effort.
The U.S. says it does not know if Russian President Vladimir Putin has made a final decision on invasion. But the administration is warning all Americans to evacuate Ukraine right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: American citizens should leave - - should leave now. We`re dealing with one of the largest armies in the world. It`s a very different situation and things can go crazy quickly.
ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We`re in a window when an invasion could begin at any time. any American citizens who remain in Ukraine should leave now.
[20:35:02]
JAKE SULLIVAN, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: The risk is now high enough and the threat is immediate enough that Putin`s demands that it is the time to leave now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: The White House just announced that President Biden will hold a call with Putin tomorrow morning, which will be the first time they have spoken this year. Biden already spoke of Transatlantic Leaders, including the heads of Germany, Canada, Britain and France in the Situation Room earlier today, before departing for Camp David for weekend.
Now, the last time that Russia invaded Ukraine back in 2014, we relied on the excellent reporting of Simon Ostrovsky. He is now a special correspondent for PBS NewsHour and he joins me tonight.
Simon, it`s a great pleasure to have you on because you were there in Crimea back in 2014. We talked to you a lot. In fact, at one point you were detained, abducted by Russian allied forces there. Initially, they let you go.
As a veteran of this conflict, what is your reaction to the official pronouncements coming out of Washington today? What does that mean?
SIMON OSTROVSKY, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR: Well, it`s obviously very troubling, because the full-scale invasion of Ukraine would mean a repeat of what happened in 2014, when tens of thousands of people were displaced from their homes. And hundreds and then, thousands of people were killed and had to leave the country. And it would be utter and total chaos.
So, when I hear that the U.S. government is saying that there`s an imminent invasion of Ukraine, then it just makes me very concerned for the people living there. It would be a tragedy of unprecedented scale in Europe for many, many decades. And so, I think it`s very worrying.
At the same time, you know, the United States government has said that they are not certain that this is actually going to take place, although the Russians have put all of the equipment in place that they need to do an invasion if they decide to do one. And apparently, that decision hasn`t been made yet.
I think that if we look at the way that the Russians have behaved in the past, the way that Putin has behaved in the past, there hasn`t been this kind of buildup that telegraphs exactly what the Russian intentions are, when he`s invaded or attacked other countries previously.
In 2014, when the little green men appeared in Crimea, it was a surprise to the entire world that that was taking place. It wasn`t something that people expected. And when the Russians decided to involve themselves in the Syrian conflict, that we found out only when Russia told -- when Putin came to his own parliament to tell his own people that Russia was going to be involved in that war.
But now, we have a situation where the Russians have been for months telegraphing, you know, their ability and their intention to invade Ukraine. And it seems to me like it is not the sort of move that Putin would usually do, by signaling what he plans on.
But having said that, we don`t actually know what`s in Putin`s mind. And I hate to speculate about the decision of this gravity that, you know, depends on only one man.
HAYES: Yes, when you hearken back to those two episodes. I mean, it`s striking, you can make the case here that with the big sort of bits of military adventurism by the Russian state under Putin recently, right?
Crimea, they were able to secure, they faced sanctions for them, but they now have regained that parcel of what Putin views as part of Russia, with the port that he views as strategically important -- that is strategically important.
And Russia`s entrance into the Syrian conflict was likely quite decisive in essentially beating back the forces, seeking to oust Assad. Assad is now back in power.
So, I mean, from that perspective, those are both essentially strategic wins. There`s some logic there that like, this has worked so far. I wonder what you think of that?
OSTROVSKY: Well, I think that Russia`s involvement in Ukraine from the very beginning has been most detrimental to Russia`s interests, first and foremost.
For decades, the exchange rate in Russia was 30 rubles to the dollar, that hovers around 70 and 80 rubles to the dollar now, that has to do with the economic collapse that took place in Russia after sanctions were imposed and the instability that happened after the Ukraine war took place.
And so, I think when we hear about the sanctions that the U.S. government and the Europeans are planning to impose on Russia, if it does, indeed, follow through with this invasion, that would be a total economic collapse. Unlike anything that we`ve seen in the past eight years.
I mean, what Russia has been dealing with in terms of sanctions up until now, it seemed like a walk in the park. We would see essentially, Russia unable to sell its oil and gas to Western Europe, which is what Putin bases his entire -- his entire system of government on.
[20:40:07]
I mean, how is he going to pay the police? How is he going to be able to pay the military, if he`s not able to export to Europe, it`s still a decade away before he can export at the same volumes to China. This would be an immediate problem for Russia, not just for ordinary Russians, but for the regime itself.
So, I think it would be extremely counterproductive and painful to the Putin regime if this invasion were to take place.
HAYES: Finally, on the Ukraine, the government`s perspective, I mean, one thing that keeps happening is U.S. officials keep coming out and saying this is imminent, this is real, this might happen. And Ukrainian officials keep coming out and being like, calm down. We`ve been at war for a while, they`re already occupying Crimea. We have a shooting hot war in the Donbass region in the Eastern area. Just chill. Like, don`t withdraw your embassy.
And I`m never quite sure what to make of that, is the U.S. overstating it? Our Ukrainian officials trying to stop like a stock market collapse? What is your read on that repeated pattern?
OSTROVSKY: Well, you know, I think that the Ukrainian administration has a tendency to blame outside forces for the uptick in tensions that we`re seeing now. Because it`s obviously very frustrating for them to be in this situation.
And you know, he`s lashed out at the media, he`s lashed out at the West, and you know, the Biden administration about this.
But at the end of the day, the reason that we`re seeing these increased tensions is because Russia has put tens of thousands of its troops all around the Ukrainian border.
So, I think it`s natural for the United States and Western governments to be expressing their concern over this issue.
But the other side of that coin, is that perhaps by heightening the concern and the worry that we think that this is real, and that the United States government thinks that this is real and a real potential to happen, it kind of inoculates in a sense, the -- and I think maybe even decreases the potential for war, because it puts the Russians on the backfoot, forcing them to deny repeatedly that they are preparing for any kind of war, which means that if they do then indeed go into -- go to war, then you know, it`s going to be clear to everybody that for weeks, they`ve been lying to everybody.
And you know, and I think that would -- that would mean strategically in a bad position after this were to take place.
HAYES: All right, Simon Ostrovsky, always a pleasure. Thank you very much.
OSTROVSKY: Good to be with you, Chris.
HAYES: Coming up, as the White House reportedly considers catering to Senator Manchin yet again, why the country needs the exact thing he`s lobbying against. I`ll explain after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:46:51]
HAYES: Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia is one of just two Democratic senators who`s prevented President Biden`s huge ambitious social safety net and climate plan known as Build Back Better from becoming law. It is dead.
In December, Manchin killed it. He appeared on Fox News to announce his opposition to the bill, saying there`s too much stuff in it and arguing the federal government should be doing more to combat inflation, which is definitely a real issue for a lot of Americans.
Nearly two months later, Manchin has not budged. Here`s what he told West Virginia radio show just yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): I`ve been ringing the alarm bell forever. I mean, for the last year about inflation, nobody`s been listening. Now we`re seeing a basic threat. It`s a 7.5 percent tax on everybody, on every product you buy. It`s just unbelievable.
HOPPY KERCHEVAL, RADIO HOST: So, that means that you`ve already been a definite no on Build Back Better. But that means no more. Not that means absolutely closed the door and all that, right?
MANCHIN: Well, the thing of it is I`ve always said these are major major policy changes, Hoppy. There`s a lot of good, good, well intentioned ideas in there that we needed to tackle sooner or later. But the bottom line is right now we`re not in a financial position to do it.
HAYES: So, now, the Biden administration had to reconsider its approach. The Washington Post reports the White House has talked about changing up the whole package, so substantially reduces the budget deficit just to please King Manchin.
But here`s the thing, it actually looks like those big stimulus bills over the past few years are doing a lot to help the deficit. Believe it or not.
Just yesterday, the Treasury Department announced the U.S. government posted $109 billion budget surplus in January, the first monthly surplus in more than two years. And where did that money come from?
Well, according to Reuters, the number was "boosted by a 21 percent jump in individual withheld income and payroll taxes that reflected higher employment and earnings due to the economic recovery".
This has been the principle of fiscal stimulus back to Keynes. Folks, like myself keep saying, when the government spends money on an economy that is under-utilized, it helps everyone.
But Senator Manchin is specifically pointing to rising inflation. We know he`s concerned about the rising national debt. As NBC News reported "Every morning at about 8:30, Manchin receives a text message from a staffer informing him of the national debt is, he replies quickly, thanks.
Weird, but OK, as economics writer Noah Smith points out, despite two huge COVID relief bills, rising inflation actually caused the national debt to fall in real terms after adjusting for inflation.
Look at the right side of the chart, the national debt spikes at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020. But then, even after all that spending, it starts to curve back down because inflation and the debt and the deficit and the fiscal health of the country are keeping Joe Manchin up at night on the yacht where he lives.
I have some great news for him. Actually, investing in the American people, spending money on economic recovery ends up being better for the government`s bottom line.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:53:44]
HAYES: The humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan is getting worse and worse with each passing day. It was already of course one of the poorest countries in the world before the U.S. military withdrew and the Taliban seize control last year.
But now, the economy is collapsing. Over a million people have already fled to neighboring countries, a million people. And those who remain half are facing severe hunger this winter, according to the U.N. 8.7 million people are at risk of starvation.
And as we have pointed out repeatedly on this show, our government, us as Americans could help those people by simply doing one thing, unfreezing of the billions of dollars of Afghan government assets that are sitting in New York banks.
The money was frozen by the U.S. government when the Taliban seize power but it belongs to the Afghan people.
And today, President Biden announced a strange sort of half plan on it. His administration wants to unfreeze $7 billion in Afghan funds and put half the money 3.5 billion into a trust fund to aid Afghanistan. And it wants to make the other half available in compensation to the victims of 9/11.
Masuda Sultan is the founder of Unfreeze Afghanistan, author of the memoir, My War at Home, about her childhood in Afghanistan and she joins me now.
You have been a very vocal advocate about this and about the humanitarian crisis unfolding Afghanistan, what`s your reaction to this proposed policy from the White House today?
[20:55:06]
MASUDA SULTAN, FOUNDER, UNFREEZE AFGHANISTAN: Well, Chris, thank you for bringing up this issue on your show before and having me on. This was a devastating day for Afghans who were hoping to have a sign that their economy would have a chance of surviving, and that they would be able to have a central bank, which the United States invested in. We spent 20 years building up a central bank in Afghanistan modeled on the Federal Reserve, and training people, building systems, transparency mechanisms, software systems that they could utilize to have a functioning banking system. And today, all of that set -- is gone.
As an American, as a taxpayer, I think it`s a short-sighted policy, because here we are saying to the Afghan people that we know your economy is being crippled due to our financial policies. And at the same time, we`re going to give you humanitarian aid.
Well, we`re creating a bigger and bigger humanitarian disaster, by not allowing banking to function and not allowing the economy to be back on its feet. What Afghans need more than anything, is food, indeed, they need aid, but they also need jobs, they need an economy, they need to be able to import food, they need to be able to pay their teachers, pay their health care workers. You know, all of this sort of normal functions that you expect to happen in a country are now crippled.
And so, who will end up paying for this in the end, of course, it`s going to be the American taxpayer, there`s a U.N. appeal out for $4.4 billion, it`s only nine percent funded and the United States is the largest donor to that appeal.
And anytime there`s a problem in Afghanistan, we know that the United States ends up having to fix it and pay for it.
HAYES: Well, just to be clear here, it just that sort of chain of causality. I mean, I`m reading it on this today and talking to some folks, those reserves sitting in New York banks are essentially the Afghan central bank`s reserves. They were frozen. And what I think you`re saying, and what I`ve seen others say is that in a sense like confiscating that reserve money and deciding how it`s going to be a portion, you basically knocked the legs out from under the Afghan central bank, which is the pillar for whatever Afghan banking system there is.
SULTAN: Correct. There`s -- like any central bank, the central bank of Afghanistan has monetary tools such as overseeing policies, like the stability of the currency, so they conduct foreign currency auctions. for example, providing liquidity to the banks, overseeing the banks. These are the basic functions.
Now, they don`t have too many tools like we do here in the United States, but they have some tools to manage their economy.
Now, those tools are completely gone with the Federal Reserve being gone, we have knocked out the lights from under this economy. And now, 22 million people who are starving are going to be waiting for money to arrive, which is -- which we`re having trouble sending because the banking system is collapsed.
(CROSSTALK)
HAYES: Raise the thing that I hear from people that have watched our coverage before that, you know, if you release it, it`s just going to go to the Taliban, it will line their pockets, it won`t make it into the hands of ordinary Afghans, the Taliban is an odious regime, why should we hand over any money to them? And I know you`re no big fan of Taliban. So, what do you say to those people that say that?
SULTAN: Sure, none of us are fans of the Taliban. But we`re in the situation now. And there`s a country of 40 million people that are suffering through one of the worst famines in history. So, what are we going to do about it?
Well, if you listen to the head of the International Rescue Committee, if you listen to the head of the U.N., if you listen to economists and experts, they`ll all tell you that the central bank, they have kept the same laws as before. It`s essentially the same people except for a figurehead that was appointed by the Taliban. The audit committee is the same. The International auditor is the same. There`s been no misappropriation of funds of the central bank. It is one of the best institutions we have created and invested in and we can monitor what they do, we can send people over.
Nobody has picked up the phone and called the Taliban and said this is what you need to do in order for us to send you money. We haven`t even tried that yet. We`ve just decided that Afghanistan doesn`t deserve to have a central bank. We want to confiscate their funds because we decided we don`t want to give it to them.
HAYES: Yes, this really seems like an atrocious mistake. And I hope that the Biden ministration is watching this and is feeling the pressure reconsider, because it`s horrible to contemplate what will happen out of this decision.
Masuda Sultan, thank you so much for taking time tonight.
SULTAN: Thank you.
HAYES: That is ALL IN for this week. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts now with Ali Velshi at the anchor desk. Good evening, Ali.
ALI VELSHI, NBC NEWS HOST: Chris, have yourself a good evening. We`ll see you next week.
And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. Let me show you a photo. The photo that you`re looking at shows 200 people in their cars.
Now, let me show you another picture. It`s the same 200 people in the same space without their cars, just sitting on the city street. Looks pretty empty