Summary
Just two hours ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops into two breakaway regions of Eastern Ukraine announcing they will carry out "peacekeeping functions." Ukraine`s president called Russia`s actions a violation of his country`s integrity. Right-wing media host Tucker Carlson is rooting on for Vladimir Putin. Axios reports that Carlson`s pro-Russia message has found a home with Republicans facing tough primary challenges, especially those in the House.
Transcript
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: But the amendment would remove that mechanism. This is incredibly dangerous, needless to say, for these kids who may not have supportive parents and don`t have the right to determine when and how to share that information.
So, Florida`s anti-history bill as well as its LGBTQ plus erasure bill, not to mention the state`s 15-week abortion ban that`s headed for the Senate too, well, that all makes the Florida Republican legislature tonight`s absolute worst.
And that is tonight`s "REIDOUT." ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES starts now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEX WAGNER, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: (voiceover): Tonight on ALL IN. Vladimir Putin escalates in Ukraine after an angry televised spectacle. Tonight what we know about what`s going on as more Russian troops move in and what we know about the American response. Deputy national security adviser Jon Finer joins me live.
Then, why is America`s loudest mouthpiece rooting for the Russian autocrat?
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, FOX NEWS: Why shouldn`t I root for Russia? Because I am.
WAGNER: And a spectacular stumble out of the gates for Donald Trump`s Twitter knockoff and the CEO he chose to run it.
DEVIN NUNES, CEO, TRUTH SOCIAL: It`s inspirational. Honestly, it`s just -- it`s actually very moving for me to see people that are on the platform that have had their -- that had their voice canceled.
WAGNER: ALL IN starts now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WAGNER: Good evening from New York. I`m Alex Wagner in for Chris Hayes. Just two hours ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops into two breakaway regions of Eastern Ukraine announcing they will carry out "peacekeeping functions." It is unclear if troops will actually enter the country. But the U.N. Security Council will convene an emergency meeting within the next hour.
And Ukraine`s president called Russia`s actions a violation of his country`s integrity, saying in a televised address late tonight, "A country that supports war for eight years cannot be talking about peace."
Earlier today in a highly choreographed event, Putin met with his country`s top security officials and floated the idea of recognizing the sovereignty of Russian separatists groups in Donetsk and Luhansk. Right now, pro- Russian groups only control about a third of those two provinces in eastern Ukraine.
Then, in a televised speech late tonight, Putin outlined his vision for Ukraine. He described the country as a historical part of Russia, calling it part of our culture and said it was run by a "puppet regime" controlled by the West. Then he signed a decree recognizing the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk.
Condemnation was swift. The White House announced a new executive order banning investment, trade, and financing with the breakaway regions. Secretary of State Antony Blinken wrote Putin`s decision directly contradicts Russia`s claimed commitment to diplomacy and is a clear attack on Ukraine`s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations said, "The U.N. remains fully supportive of the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. And Ukraine called for the emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council where Russia currently holds the presidency. That meeting is now happening in the next hour.
President Biden spent most of the day speaking with U.S. allies in Europe, including a 35-minute phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, where are the administration says Biden reiterated that the U.S. would respond swiftly and decisively in lockstep with its allies and partners to further Russian aggression against Ukraine.
Biden also spoke with the leaders of both France and Germany. According to the readout, they discussed how they will continue to coordinate their response on next steps. This morning, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan reiterated that diplomacy is the Biden administration`s top priority.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAKE SULLIVAN, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: So, we will not close the door on diplomacy. We will go the extra mile on diplomacy. But we are also prepared with our allies and partners to respond decisively if Russia attacks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WAGNER: Of course, that happened before Putin signed the decree this evening ordering Russian troops into the two breakaway provinces in eastern Ukraine. There is no evidence of troop movement, but Senator Bob Menendez, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a statement late tonight reading, "if any additional Russian troops or proxy forces cross into Donbas, the Biden administration and our European allies must not hesitate in imposing crushing sanctions.
Joining me now is NBC News Correspondent Erin McLaughlin who is live in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. Erin, what can you tell us about Russian troop movements there and how the city of Kiev is at this hour?
ERIN MCLAUGHLIN, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (on camera): Well, I would say people here in Kiev, Alex are stunned by this turn of events. We just heard from the Ukrainian president in 2:00 in the morning here, address the country about Russian President Vladimir Putin`s decision to declare the breakaway regions of Donbas independent republics.
President Zelensky struck a defiant tone in his address and reference President Putin`s hour-long rambling revisionism of Russian history saying that he`s not going to be focusing on the past, he`s going to be focusing on the present and the future saying, "We are on our own land. We are not afraid of anything or anyone. We owe nothing to anyone. And we will not give anything to anyone. And we are sure of that, because now is not February 2014 but February 2020, another country, another army, one goal, peace in Ukraine, Glory to Ukraine."
[20:05:48]
Of course, February 2014 is eight years ago, when the Maidan protests took place just days ago. They mark the remembrance of the dozens of protesters who died trying to overturn the pro-Russian backed government at the time. So, he`s referencing a bit of history there.
But for the most part, at this point, he`s trying to maintain calm, trying to keep people from panicking. Panicking is seen as a real enemy here in Ukraine in this crisis. And that has been a theme of his speech so far. And it`s something that we heard from him yet again.
In terms of those troop movements, Russia says it`s sending in so called peacekeepers into Donetsk and Luhansk. But they`re really, you know, Russian troops will be moving in. And the question becomes, will they cross the line of contact? Will they cross into government-controlled areas? And if that happens, how will the Ukrainian military respond, of course, is an outstanding question.
I`ve been speaking to military experts here, former Ukrainian defense minister, and he said, he`s extremely concerned, given the precedent that has been set over the past few days about the prospect of a further escalation. Alex?
WAGNER: You say that panic is the enemy there in Ukraine, but the President is giving remarks at 2:00 a.m. The troops are where they are. I mean, is there a palpable fear that there could be further westward push from these Russian troops, that the people of Kiev have something to be worried about? Do you feel that? Is that something that`s circulating at all among the citizenry?
MCLAUGHLIN: Oh, absolutely. I was speaking earlier today, shortly following President Putin`s address to a former Zelensky advisor who told me that he thought this speech was ominous. He said that he had echoes of 1939 and that he believes that essentially what President Putin wants to do is take the whole of Ukraine.
That is the view of a former Zelensky advisor, other people feeling the same. So, people here are extremely concerned, and they`re taking this very seriously. But what you don`t see is people panicking. There aren`t runs at the supermarket. There`s not -- no long lines of gas. Yes, some people have evacuated their children to the western portion of the country, some have left Kiev. But the vast majority remain here and conduct sort of business as usual.
It`s actually very different picture in Donetsk and Luhansk, the separatist-controlled areas. We`ve seen women and children being evacuated over the past few days, thousands of them sent over into Russia, aboard buses and trains. And they`re being forced to leave their husbands and their fathers behind to fight in a war that has yet to be declared.
I was texting with one woman who is in Donbas, in separatist-controlled Donbas. And she was telling me that she was absolutely terrified. But she did not want to leave her home. I asked her, who do you blame for this crisis, even though she says separatists have been pointing the finger at Ukraine, she says she doesn`t know who to blame.
So, people are scared on both sides tonight. Alex.
WAGNER: Erin McLaughlin live in Kiev for us tonight. Thanks for staying with us at this late hour, Erin. We`ll look forward to more updates for you in the coming days.
Jon Finer is the White House Deputy National Security Adviser and he joins me now. John, let`s just talk about the limited sanctions that the White House announced today. Those are only against the breakaway regions, not against Russia itself. And those sanctions were announced before Putin signed this decree ordering peacekeeping troops to the breakaway region. Is there going to be a separate response from the White House to that move by Putin?
JON FINER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Yes, and there will. The statement that we put out tonight when we announced the executive order in immediate response to the appalling although not surprising action that President Putin took indicated that we would have further actions that we would be taking tomorrow.
We will continue to assess what Russia does overnight. But based on the steps they`ve already taken today, which are clear and direct violations of the only agreement that exists between the various parties to the Ukraine conflict, the Minsk agreement, we`re going to be imposing significant sanctions on Russia tomorrow.
[20:10:04]
WAGNER: Okay, can you give us a sense of the lines here, right? The U.S. and allies have said repeatedly that these crippling economic sanctions, crippling economic measures will be put in place if Russia further invades Ukraine? When does that line get crossed? What constitutes an invasion in the eyes of the Biden White House?
FINER: So, we`re going to continue to observe again, we`ve seen reports of statements that the Russians have made about their intention to deploy peacekeepers. Peacekeepers is obviously a euphemism and a lie, as the Russians have been lying about their presence -- military presence in the Donbas now for eight years.
So, we`re going to observe what they actually do, not just what they say, and we will respond accordingly. But our response, as we`ve already indicated, is going to include significant sanction steps starting tomorrow.
WAGER: OK, we know that there is an emerging emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council. And that`s happening shortly. What are you hoping to get out of that? And what is the tenor among those nations that sit on the Security Council at this hour?
FINER: Well, Erin, the Security Council is the foremost international body that has responsibility for peace, security, stability in the world. Russia sits, as you know, as a permanent member of that Security Council, which means it can veto resolutions, formal statements by the Security Council.
What it can`t do is stop the Security Council from meeting, stop members of the Security Council from calling Russia out for the actions that it has taken, and forcing Russia to defend itself. And what is done is frankly, indefensible. So, tomorrow, the United States joined by other countries will be calling for such a meeting, and Russia will be called to account to explain its actions.
WAGNER: But do you think that`s having any effect? I mean, if you listen to what Putin is saying today -- this is one of the statements he said earlier today. They`re trying to blackmail us again, they`re threatening us with sanctions, which by the way, I think they will introduce anyway. Russia has every right to take retaliatory measures to ensure its own security. That is exactly what we will do.
I mean, I guess I wonder whether you think the talk of the sanctions, the statements that you`d like the Security Council to put out, whether that`s actually going to move Putin at all, whether that`s part of his cabinet calculations at this point.
FINER: So, I guess, Erin, that`s still to be determined, and Russia is going to do what it decides to do. But sanctions and actions at the Security Council, I should underscore, only part of our response. We`ve also been increasing substantially the amount of security assistance that we provide to the Ukrainians, more than $650 million worth of security assistance to help them defend their territory.
And we are increasing U.S. troop presence in NATO territory to reassure allies should Russia ever make the mistake of testing the sanctity of the Article Five commitment to defend our allies, the President`s committed to that 100 percent.
And so, our responses is taking a number of forms. At the end of the day, Russia will decide what it does, but we can control what we do. And that will include significant costs on Russia if this goes forward as it looks like it will.
WAGNER: Do you -- when you say it`s up to Russia to figure out its response. I mean, they suggest they`re going to be retaliatory efforts against the West. Is the U.S. prepared for those? One would assume cyberattacks are part of that portfolio. What else do you expect at the stage and how ready are we?
FINER: We have spent a lot of time preparing for any number of steps that Russia could take. The primary stuff that we are focused on tonight and going forward is that Russia is prepared to launch a major military invasion of Ukraine. More than 150,000 Russian forces on Ukraine`s borders, every expectation we have that that will go ahead.
As you heard, my colleague Jake Sullivan say this morning, we continue to be committed to diplomacy should Russia choose a different path to try to pursue what it says are its legitimate concerns about its own security. We have other ideas, but we are ready to have those conversations. Every indication is Russia is choosing force, not diplomacy. And the step that it took today in Moscow related to the Donbas region of Ukraine is just another indication.
WAGNER: Jon, let`s talk about the diplomacy. I mean, 24 hours in a new cycle like this is a lifetime ago. But this morning, we were talking about a potential meeting between President Biden and Vladimir Putin. Where does the diplomacy stand at this point? I mean, I know you`re going to say you`re a fan of it and you`d like to pursue that option, but practically speaking, I mean, where are we?
FINER: So, it is up to the Russians to determine whether they are actually open to a diplomatic path. We have said that we are. We have put real ideas on the table in close coordination with our partners and allies and in close coordination with the Government of Ukraine that we think could enhance our interests and the broader security environment in Europe and that are responsive to some of the issues, at least that Russia has raised.
Every indication we have is that Russia is saying things about the diplomacy, but it`s taking steps on the ground that move it closer and closer, frankly, toward war and not diplomacy. So, it will really depend on what Russia does in the coming days. We`ve said we`re open to further conversations, but not if they launched invasion of Ukraine.
WAGNER: Is President Biden going to speak to Vladimir Putin?
FINER: President Biden has said he`s open to these conversations. He`s had a number of them in the past. But this meeting would only take place if Russia does not proceed with an invasion of Ukraine and every indication for now is that they`re likely to do that.
[20:15:07]
WAGNER: So, the entry of the peacekeeping forces doesn`t count in your book as an invasion that would take the meeting off the table?
FINER: Again, we`re going to assess what Russia does overnight and in the coming days. There will be a significant response to that tomorrow, and any further diplomatic conversations will depend on exactly what Russia does in the intervening period.
WAGNER: Jon Finer White House Deputy National Security Adviser, thanks for your time, John.
FINER: Thanks very much, Alex.
WAGNER: Still to come, more on today`s delusional speech by Russia`s autocratic leader and why it is that America`s top right-wing mouthpiece on cable seems so very into it. All that and more just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WAGNER: Shortly after his speech recognizing to eastern Ukrainian territories as independent, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops into both areas and what he framed as a peacekeeping efforts in the regions. Russia has been backing separatists in these regions for the past eight years. And it is unclear if this troop movement if it actually happens, will trigger further sanctions by the White House.
Simon Ostrovsky was in Ukraine for the 2014 invasion. He is a special correspondent for the PBS NewsHour, and he joins me now. Hi, Simon.
SIMON OSTROVSKY, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR: Hi.
WAGNER: So, Putin talked about Ukraine essentially being Russian territory but is still recognizing the independence of those two regions, right? He`s not annexing them as he did with Crimea in 2014. I wonder what you make of that strategy, that position he`s taking out.
[20:20:10]
OSTROVSKY: Well, I think it`s actually really too early to tell whether he`s going to annex those territories in the end or not, what his decision- making process is going to be. In 2014, when the occupation of Crimea began, the fake referendum was orchestrated, Putin did exactly that. He recognized Crimea as independence for a hot minute. And then he annexed it and integrated into Russia.
We actually saw his Security Council meeting that he had held with his various ministers and high officials before he gave that very bombastic speech later in the day, where one of the officials seemingly almost jumped ahead in the script, saying that he supported the joining of the Donbas regions controlled by the separatists to Ukraine.
I think the other thing that`s really important to remember is that Russia has added troops in eastern Ukraine, not just in Crimea since the very beginning. I actually did an investigation in 2015 tracking a Russian tank battalion to the city of Debal`tseve where it participated in a very important tank battle.
So, Russia`s had regular army troops there for years now. And I can understand why the Biden administration at this very minute doesn`t want to impose the larger package of sanctions that they`ve been promising because it`s one thing for Russia to bring more troops into the areas that are de facto already controlled by Russia.
The question, as your correspondent pointed out earlier in the program, is will they move across the front line and try to retake -- or try to rather take new territories in the rest of Ukraine. And I think that`s what has everybody biting their nails at this point, and why the Biden administration wants to leave those bigger sanctions off the table for the moment in order to discourage the Russians from doing that.
WAGNER: Right. They don`t want to pull the trigger on the larger package of sanctions unless and until they need to. Let`s talk though a little bit about -- I mean, this is -- these are all different parts of the country. The more western parts of the country distinctly different than the eastern regions. But Crimea isn`t even the same as the Donbas region in terms of the relationship that Russians have to those parts of the country.
I mean, you know, this area really well. Can you talk to us about the ways in which Crimea is different than Donbas?
OSTROVSKY: Well, I mean, Crimea is, first of all, a much nicer part of the world. So, it`s-- you know, it`s in the Black Sea, it was sort of a vacation area for generations of Russian and Soviet citizens. And it`s basically, you know, was at one time the jewel of the Russian Empire.
The Donbas is an industrial area that`s largely been sort of left to its own devices over the past 30 years, where there`s been a lot of unemployment and basically crumbling infrastructure. And I think that`s interesting because I think a lot of people in Russia haven`t been very excited about the prospect of having to not only resurrect the industry, but also repair all of the damage that has happened over the last eight years of war. It`s going to be very expensive for Russia to try to reintegrate that.
And it`s already been spending so much money, because as I said before, it`s de facto been controlled by Russia since the very beginning. So, if Russia moves a few more troops and or a few more troops out, what I think your viewers need to understand is that Russia has been participating in this war for nearly a decade now already.
WAGNER: So, I mean, does that basically mean that everyone is going to tacitly just basically seed to the idea that Russia is taking over this part of the country?
OSTROVSKY: I really hope not because we`ve seen this all before. In 2008, Russia invaded and annexed -- or rather sorry, invaded and occupied chunks of the Republic of Georgia. And then in 2014, we saw Russia occupied Crimea and annexed that Peninsula.
Now, we`re seeing them come into eastern Ukraine, declare the independence of these regions, and potentially they may annex them as well. So, it`s anybody`s guess what Russia is going to do five years from now.
If there is not a strong, forceful reaction that actually does serious damage that could deter future action from Russia, we should just expect this whole play to replay itself a few years down the line.
WAGNER: Well, it`s proving to be a winning strategy for Putin. If he keeps being able to do this with impunity. I guess, I wonder to the punitive part of this, sanctions. You know, the White House -- we`ve talked -- we`ve talked about this a second ago, is holding out this larger package of sanctions if and when Putin takes more aggressive action. But does that do anything to Putin?
I mean he`s already spoken explicitly about them. He`s expecting them. We already know that they`re planning counterattacks against the West. I mean does this have any kind of cooling effect on what he`s planning for in the next couple of weeks or months, or whatever the timetable is?
[20:25:16]
OSTROVSKY: Well, the White House has played its cards pretty close to his chest. So, we don`t know just how devastating the sanctions could be to the Russian economy. So, it`s difficult for me to answer that question. But I think the larger problem The United States has had with deterring further Russian action has been that the Russians just don`t believe that there is a credible military threat from the United States, because they know that our people are fatigued from decades of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that it`s the last thing that Biden would ever do would be to commit troops.
So, he does -- not only does he not have the option to use his military in a confrontation with Russia, he doesn`t even have the option to threaten the use of military. And that`s where the deterrent power really is. I mean, the State Department can`t really negotiate very strongly when they don`t have that option to put on the table, when all they have is the option of economic sanctions. There has to be a carrot, but you also have to have the potential of the stick. And the United States just doesn`t have that anymore.
WAGNER: Yes, it`s willingly already said explicitly that U.S troops will not be involved in this conflict. Simon Ostrovsky from PBS, thank you so much for your time.
OSTROVSKY: Thank you for having me.
WAGNER: Next, why is a Fox News host shilling for Vladimir Putin? How Tucker Carlson`s pro-Russian rhetoric is finding a home amongst Republicans in Congress. That`s after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:30:00]
WAGNER: Right now one of the biggest cheerleaders for Russia as it threatens to invade a peaceful and sovereign country is the host of the number one show on Fox News.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Why do I care what`s going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? And I`m serious. Like why do I care?
RICHARD GOODSTEIN, FORMER CLINTON ADVISER: I`ll tell you why.
CARLSON: And why shouldn`t I root for Russia, which I am?
At this point, NATO exist primarily to torment Vladimir Putin, who whatever has many faults, has no intention of invading Western Europe. Vladimir Putin does not want Belgium, he just wants to keep his western border secure.
Wait a second, why is it disloyal to side with Russia, but loyal to side with Ukraine?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WAGNER: That kind of perspective has created tension for Tucker Carlson in some parts of the Republican establishment, with certain Republican senators supposedly pushing back against Carlson support for Russia.
But Axios reports that Carlson`s pro-Russia message has found a home with Republicans facing tough primary challenges, especially those in the House. GOP operatives working in 2022 primary races tell Axios they worry they`ll alienate the base if they push to commit American resources to Ukraine or deploy U.S. troops to Eastern Europe.
And Carlson knows that telling Axios quote, I really hope that Republican primary voters are ruthless about this and vote out any Republican who believes Ukraine`s borders are more important than our borders.
Carlson`s point of view has also won him positive reviews in the Russian state media where they have gone out of their way to highlight his work. This is how it looked last month was one of Russia`s most-watched networks played a clip where Carlson defended Russian anger about NATO involvement in Ukraine.
And because of all that glowing coverage he`s getting on their state media, The Daily Beast reported just days ago, some of the Kremlin`s biggest mouthpieces are openly calling for Putin to be interviewed by none other than Tucker Carlson.
David Folkenflik is a media correspondent for NPR and he joins me now. David, it is extraordinary bedfellows, I guess, would be the most euphemistic way of saying this. But let`s just first talk about the power of Tucker Carlson.
I believe it was the New York Times Magazine that quoted someone saying he doesn`t just report the news for American conservatives, he creates it. His echo chamber is not to be underestimated, not just in terms of viewership, David, but the way he can change the tide for otherwise fascistic leaders.
DAVID FOLKENFLIK, MEDIA CORRESPONDENT, NPR: I think that he`s doing -- playing a role in the absence of particularly a former President Trump deciding whether or not to run in 2024 that is otherwise unparalleled on the conservative right and the sort of Trump -- pro-Trump wing Republican Party, that Trump sympathetic, the Trump agnostic. He`s shaping where the Republican Party is going.
If you look at lawmakers and whether or not they are attuned to what he has to say, they -- most of them tend to be in the house that`s up for reelection every two years, or in the Senate in a cycle up for re-election, or mostly in a primary as a candidate trying to break through to get to the final ballot next November.
And, you know, they are loath to alienate him when he can come after them swinging, amplify their rivals in the primary, find ways to undermine them, hit at them in a way that will make donors shy away. You know, Tucker Carlson is really playing a role.
And he`s explicitly doing for Putin, in a sense, what he`s already done for Viktor Orban in Hungary, which is to take somebody who has espouse pretty anti-American ideals and clean them up and say, not only why should I care about what happens to Ukraine, as you heard in that clip that you so presciently played, but also right after he said, why shouldn`t I root for Russia, kind of laying bare the idea that I`m rooting for a vastly more powerful nation that just wants to dominate and repress a neighbor that it wants controlled.
WAGNER: Yes, it seems -- I mean, he`s saying explicitly, I`m rooting for Russia. This is a person who took his Fox News program to Hungary and interviewed Viktor Orban who is an anti-democratic force in Europe. And following that, I believe, Jeff Sessions, Mike Pence both visited Hungary and CPAC is having a satellite conference in Hungary this year.
I mean this is where we talk about the ways in which he can really manipulate the political landscape in a profound way. And it seems like, you know, if we talk about Putin and Russia, this has a measurable effect on the American public.
[20:35:21]
I mean, American attitudes, especially in Republican circles to Vladimir Putin and Russia have changed over the course of the last five years in large part due to the fact that people like Tucker Carlson are saying, I`m backing Russia and Donald Trump has took a much softer, if not friendly attitude towards Vladimir Putin.
I guess I wonder, David, not all Republicans are in line. And even Sean Hannity is in sort of the awkward position of think -- of basically saying, Biden needs to be tougher on Russia. He`s taken the sort of semi- traditional hawkish stance that is a sort of hallmark of the Republican Party. Do you think it matters in this day and age that Hannity and Carlson are in fact on different sides or is the fact that they`re both angry about how Biden is responding to the situation is that enough for the average Fox viewer?
FOLKENFLIK: Well, it gives Fox a certain plausibility saying, look, we have a variety and diversity of anti-Biden views on this channel. Doesn`t that show how we support intellectual -- and foster intellectual debate, right? I think that what Carlson is doing is more influential. I mean, you kind of know, either where Hannity is or where he`s likely to go.
But what you`re seeing from Carlson is, in a sense, a way in which he can argue a certain kind of intellectual through-line. He was skeptical and critical of the push to go to war in Iraq. And that gives him some credibility, in a sense. But what he`s really doing is finding it fostering a way to be muscularly anti-Biden, and to be consistent with what Trump figures would say without having to support Trump directly. He`s kind of one of those anti-anti-Trumpers to the nth degree.
And there are echoes of what we heard in the early months of the Trump presidency. And I guess leading up to it, where you had Mike Flynn and others that had ties to Russia, that were sympathetic to it. You know, Jared Kushner wanting to create a hotline in between, you know, the White House and the Kremlin in a way.
And you know, the fact that the President`s very brief first national security adviser was paid to attend an RT, that is a Russia TV state-owned network anniversary banquet, and was paid tens of thousands of dollars to attended -- to clink glasses two seats away from Vladimir Putin tells you about the proximity there.
Well, this sounds awfully similarly cozy. And it doesn`t surprise me that, you know, you would see Moscow propagandists embracing this from Fox News, the most widely watched a network, Tucker Carlson the most widely watched show on that network, the most influential show on that network, and the one that makes -- cast such fear and in such thrall from so many figures, particularly in the House Republican side and those who seek to join Congressional ranks.
WAGNER: I think we`ll look back on this period as the lull where the partisan lines hadn`t been drawn boldly over this conflict, right? But one almost feels like the tide is coming because precisely of the rhetoric of Tucker, Tucker Carlson. And I guess I wonder, is it just a matter of time before his pro-Russian anti-Ukraine rhetoric basically takes over the House Republican Conference? I mean, is this going to become the new partisan fight over Ukraine?
Well, you don`t even see Kevin McCarthy like King Cnut saying I can stop the tides. He`s not even trying. Right now, I think he`s trying to stay at top is fractious caucus and conference long enough to ride the, you know, concerns about COVID, the economy, and the Biden administration to victory in the house really without regard to what the heck kind of agenda he has. He hasn`t put any forward?
You know, Tucker Carlson here is not I think, working intellectually through these issues. And there are reasons to be concerned about conflict and the idea of drawing America into that conflict. And there are reasons to question the grounds on which certain claims are made as reporters for NPR, the AP and others have done.
At the same time, what you`re hearing here is a question of, you know, why should we support Russia in this conflict? You know, Russia is far and away the aggressor here. It is not in doubt. The question is the degree to which Americans get involved in trying to resolve or trying to hold off any conflict from occurring.
And what you`re seeing from Tucker Carlson is the idea of as a way of attacking the Biden administration`s strong desire to sanction the Russians, to impose an economic hit on Russia for this apparently impending aggression.
You`re seeing Tucker Carlson accusing the Biden administration of some sort of aggression, as though it`s intending to go to war, something the administration has ruled out. It`s a kind of rhetorical jujitsu, the kind which Carlson all too readily embraces.
[20:40:04]
WAGNER: The world we now live in where we have to care equally about what Vladimir Putin wants to do and what Tucker Carlson`s response to Vladimir Putin`s actions is. David Folkenflik, thank you for your time.
FOLKENFLIK: You bet.
WAGNER: Still ahead, as Donald Trump faces parallel civil and criminal investigations, how the former president is becoming his own biggest liability.
Plus, as if he didn`t have enough on his mind, the embarrassing launch day for Trump`s bootleg Twitter. How it all went down, after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WAGNER: Donald Trump just launched his own social network. It`s called Truth Social and it`s basically a copy of Twitter. Trump of course has been banned from Twitter along with all the other major social networks since last year when, if you remember, he incited an insurrection.
And Trump a formerly prolific tweeter has been gearing up for this launch for month`s announcing back in October, "I created Truth Social to stand up to the tyranny of big tech. We live in a world where the Taliban has a huge presence on Twitter yet your favorite American president has been silenced. This is unacceptable. I am excited to send out my first truth on Truth Social very soon.
[20:45:21]
And last week, Trump did post that first truth. That`s what they`re calling the fake tweets, truth -- truths. There it is, that inaugural Trump truth, "Get ready. Your favorite president will see you soon." What a truth.
Now, there have been a few bumps in the road. Back in October, we learned that the Trump team was building Truth Social by completely ripping off another social network. They used its open-source code and violated the software licensing agreement.
Then just last month, advisers said that the website was still months away from its launch and Donald Trump was not happy. And then all of a sudden, Truth Social seem to have pulled everything together. But last night, when on the platform became available on Apple`s App Store, it immediately started glitching.`
The Daily Beast reports around 11:00 p.m. Eastern time select users who tried to create accounts were repeatedly met with a read error warning. Something went wrong, please try again. Shortly thereafter, around midnight, others were told that the app was simply too popular for them to join it with a warning that read, due to massive demand we have placed you on our waitlist. That waitlist reportedly got as high as 160,000 people.
This morning Truth Social posted this status update. Due to the overwhelming demand at launch, we are currently rate-limited on onboarding new users to the platform. We are working to increase signup capacity for onboarding and we`ll continue to update the status as capacity increases. It`s painful news, painful news for everybody looking to get on boarded to the Truth.
Painful even more so for the man Donald Trump hand-picked to onboard all these truth seekers, a man named Devin Nunes. You may remember Nunes as the former Republican congressman from California`s Central Valley, not to be confused with Silicon Valley, though it too is indeed a valley in California.
Nunes is a self-described dairy farmer from the area with zero experience in tech as a case in point. When he was a member of Congress, Nunes at one point tried to sue Twitter for defamation over a number of parody accounts, including one named Devin Nunes` cow. That suit did not work.
Then this past December, Nunes resigned from Congress in the middle of his term to become the CEO of the Trump media and technology group where he is overseeing the launch of, you guessed it, Truth Social.
At the time, Donald Trump called Nunes "A fighter and a leader who understands that we must stop the liberal media and big tech from destroying the freedoms that make America great. And yesterday, on Fox News, Nunes spoke about the great honor that was bestowed upon him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NUNES: -- people who have been booted from social media for the last two or three years. I mean, there`s excitement on our platform right now and people -- it`s inspirational. Honestly, it`s just -- it`s actually very moving for me to see people that are on the platform that have had their -- that had their voice canceled.
We want to value our customers. And we want them to tell us what they would like to have on the platform, Maria, which is the opposite of some Silicon Valley tech oligarch freak telling people what they want to think and deciding who can or cannot be on the platform.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WAGNER: Sure, as long as the platform actually exists. Now, while Donald Trump`s new social media venture flounders, he is facing another big mess. The latest on the former president`s growing legal troubles is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:50:00]
WAGNER: Donald Trump`s legal problems are closing in around him. Not only is the January 6 Committee investigating his role in the insurrection, he is the subject of two parallel investigations in the state of New York.
Manhattan`s new district attorney, Alvin Bragg, is taking over the ongoing criminal investigation while New York Attorney General Letitia James continues her civil investigation. Both are looking into the former president`s business practices.
And last week he suffered a major loss in that civil case when a judge ruled that Trump and his adult children, Don Jr. and Ivanka, must testify. This is especially bad for the Trump`s as former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti notes in Politico, because if you refuse to answer questions in a civil case, if you take the Fifth, the judge can tell the jury to draw an adverse inference that your answers would have been harmful to you.
Also, last week, we learned that Trump`s longtime accounting firm Mazars dumped him saying he could no longer stand behind a decade of the Trump organization`s annual financial statements. That sent the former president into a tizzy. He released multiple statements on the matter, most recently writing that the firm was "broken by these radical left racist prosecutors and couldn`t take it anymore."
And the latest flow just came on Friday when a federal judge ruled that three civil lawsuits seeking to hold Trump accountable for the insurrection on January 6, they can move forward.
Barbara McQuade is a former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, now the co-host of the Sisters In Law podcast, and she joins me now. Thanks for joining me, Barbara.
BARBARA MCQUADE, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Thanks, Alex.
WAGNER: So, let`s just talk about the fact that there are two -- there`s a civil and a criminal trial that are sort of advancing at the same time in parallel tracks. The former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti, he notes in this piece for Politico that the priority for anybody in a similar circumstance facing parallel investigations is to decouple them basically, make sure the civil investigation is delayed until after the criminal case is wrapped up. Does that seem like a possibility for Donald Trump at this point?
[20:55:15]
MCQUADE: I don`t think it is, Alex. I mean, we`ve seen the judge issued this order that Donald Trump must sit for a deposition. And so, there is this dynamic where if he invokes the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself, in that case, which he has every right to do we all have that right, then in any subsequent criminal case, the fact that he invoked could not be used against him.
But in a civil case, you don`t have that same Fifth Amendment protection. And so, a jury would be entitled to know that you invoke the Fifth Amendment rather than answer the questions that you`re asked. And you may draw an adverse inference, that is, you didn`t answer the question, because the answer might have been something that you believe was harmful to you.
Oftentimes, when there are cases that are already pending, what can happen is that the party can ask for a stay of the civil case until the criminal case is completed. So that if the person wants to take the Fifth, that doesn`t come out into the case.
But because this is being done in a pre-filing deposition, I don`t think he`s going to have the opportunity to be able to play that strategy here.
WAGNER: It sounds like you can get that stay if you make the case that a criminal indictment is coming, right? If you kind of say, look, all the evidence is pointing towards an indictment, let`s issue a stay on the civil case and we proceed forward with a criminal case. Is that right?
MCQUADE: Yes. I think even then it might be too speculative. I think if the two cases have been filed, then you can probably get a stay in the civil case until the criminal case is complete. But at this point is nothing more than an investigation that may or may not ever develop into charges.
And so, I think at this point, you can`t really just stall on the "what if" that there may be some criminal charges filed someday in the future?
WAGNER: Well, and Donald Trump has gone out of his way to call this, you know, a witch hunt to just try and, you know, cast aspersions on everything that`s being done in terms of the criminal investigation. Witch hunt is repeated often. And so to then somehow give weight to that criminal investigation by saying and indictments coming down would undermine everything he said so far, would it not?
MCQUADE: Yes, I think you`re right, Alex. I think that one of the things that Donald Trump likes to do is the best defense for him as a good offense. And so, to constantly be attacking those who are His accusers is the way he undermines them, and tries to undermine the accusation itself.
And so, for him to say, hold on, I`m just about to be prosecuted or indicted, I think would be contrary to all that he`s ever done, because he does -- would not want to give credence to the idea that some grand jury would believe what Alvin Bragg has put before them.
WAGNER: Do we know anything about Alvin Bragg`s investigation at this point? It feels like we`ve gotten very little information in and around that. And I wonder if that`s on purpose, that`s part of the strategy here.
MCQUADE: I think it is, Alex. It doesn`t surprise me. You know, Letitia James has been very public in her filing in part because Trump has been so obstructionist in sitting for this deposition. So, she said, well, then I`ll put it out there. She filed a brief that showed all of her case, saying, here`s why I need the deposition. And she used it in the court to ask the judge for this order. And that argument was very powerful, because we could see the evidence.
In a grand jury investigation, it is by definition secret. And so we should not know anything that`s going on there. I think that Alvin Bragg is playing it by the book. We have some hints. We know that before Cyrus Vance left, he hired some very good criminal prosecutors in white collar cases. That seems like a step you wouldn`t take if the case wasn`t going anywhere. He`s impaneled a grand jury similarly. That`s a step I think you would only take if you thought the case was going somewhere.
And I think we can also see from the allegations that Letitia James has put forward in the civil case. Some of that same evidence could be very powerful in a criminal case if you can improve -- if you can prove an intent to defraud. And so, my guess is that intent part is the part that both of these investigators are looking to see whether there is evidence that they can use to prove their case.
WAGNER: So, there`s like -- we have the assumption that Trump and his children will plead the Fifth when they`re deposed, which could be used as adverse inference in the civil case. And then, there`s the discovery phase, which is going -- which is -- which is continuing onwards. And then there are three civil cases that are going to move forward where there`s also going to be a discovery phase. How damaging do you think that could be at this point?
MCQUADE: I think that`s very significant. So, we had this order by Judge Mehta that you mentioned on Friday that denied Donald Trump`s motion to dismiss the case based on immunity. I mean, he said as President, I`m immune from suit, you can`t sue me.
And what the judge said there is you`re not acting as president, you are acting as a failed political candidate. So, that does open the door to discovery, meeting production of documents, and again, deposition. So that could really open the floodgates about what happened on January 6.
WAGNER: Barbara McQuade, always good to talk with you. Thanks for your time tonight. That is ALL IN on this Monday night. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" with Ali Velshi starts now. Good evening, Ali.