Summary
The chief financial officer of the Trump Organization pleads guilty to tax evasion and faces jail time. The Florida judge who approved the search at Mar-a-Lago holds a hearing on a request to release the secret affidavit justifying that search. Is Russia planning a false flag disaster at a Ukrainian nuclear reactor complex? Donald Trump continues raking in campaign contributions by playing the victim.
Transcript
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: We did a report on this on the program last night. And we have heard a lot of reaction from you.
BEAT viewer Matt Jackson says Republicans "went from back the blue to attack the blue."
Amanda Carroll talks about the double standard here, law enforcement and the justice system, and how it has been clearly documented.
I have told you we keep track of what you say and write to us. And we appreciate a lot of what I have heard from you. We will have another update and an expert on that story on an upcoming episode of "THE BEAT".
Right now, it`s time for THE REIDOUT with Tiffany Cross.
TIFFANY CROSS, MSNBC HOST: All right, tonight on THE REIDOUT:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Replacing George this week is my chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg. And you think George is tough, wait until you see Allen.
QUESTION: Mr. Weisselberg, how do you feel, sir?
QUESTION: Are you going to testify against Trump?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROSS: My, how things have changed for Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg from a guest spot on "The Apprentice" to a sentence of five months in prison for his role in a tax scheme.
Also tonight, the judge who approved the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago says he`s inclined to release some of the search warrant affidavit. Meanwhile, that same judge is facing antisemitic threats from Trump`s MAGA followers, as Trump cashes in on the FBI raid, raking millions of dollars.
Plus, a frightening report from Ukraine that Russia may be planning a false flag disaster at a Ukrainian nuclear reactor complex.
Good evening, everyone. I`m Tiffany Cross, in tonight for Joy Reid.
And we begin with new developments in the former presidents many, many, many, many, many legal troubles, starting in a Florida courthouse.
Now, a federal judge said he`s inclined to conceal some of the affidavit used to justify the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, with Justice Department reactions that it won`t undermine its investigation. Now, Judge Bruce Reinhart, who approved that search warrant cited intense public interest, responding to the request from several media organizations, this one included, to release the document.
And the Justice Department has until next Thursday to submit redactions. Now, a top counterintelligence official with the department, Jay Bratt, he argued that the investigation is in its early stages, and that releasing the affidavit could jeopardize several witnesses.
Now, a spokeswoman for the former president said afterward that it should be released unredacted. But it is worth noting that, while his attorney Christina Bobb was in court, Trump did not submit a motion to unseal the document.
In the meantime, NBC News has learned that the FBI team is still sifting through the seized documents nine days later, separating documents covered by attorney-client privilege and material not relevant to the investigation.
But you know what is clear? The probe into those top secret classified documents will hang over the former president for a while, just like all his other legal troubles. Let`s get into those.
Today, in the New York court, the former chief financial officer for the Trump Organization, Allen Weisselberg, pleaded guilty to 15 felonies and admitted that he conspired with the Trump company in a scheme to avoid paying taxes on special off-the-books perks.
Weisselberg will serve five months in prison under a plea deal requiring him to cooperate with the prosecutors and testify about Trump Organization business practices at a trial starting in October.
Now, without the deal he faced up to 15 years in prison. There`s also the ongoing Justice Department investigation into the January 6 and efforts to overturn the 2020 election. "The New York Times" reports that a grand jury subpoena was issued to the National Archives in may for all the documents provided to the House January 6 Committee, noting that the request suggests that the DOJ may be following the committee`s lead and prosecutors believe evidence of a crime may exist in the documents they turned over to the panel.
Now, it`s important to note that this subpoena is not related to the separate investigation in the classified documents in the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. But Trump has so many legal exposures at this point, it`s seriously, truly hard to keep count.
Let`s bring in some brilliant legal minds who can help me with that.
Joining me now is Katie Phang. She`s an MSNBC legal analyst and host of "THE KATIE PHANG SHOW" on MSNBC and Peacock, also my friend, and the brilliant Joyce Vance. She`s a professor at the University of Alabama School of Law and a former U.S. attorney, and quite the dog mom. Happy to have you both.
Let`s start off with you. Joyce.
I want you to explain to our audience why all of this matters. And we can start with the judge, who`s apparently inclined to unseal part of the affidavit. Is that a good idea?
JOYCE VANCE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: So, that`s a good place to start, Tiffany.
This is a surprise, I think. And people who are career federal prosecutors expected the judge to keep this motion, this search warrant affidavit entirely under seal. So, now the fight begins to see just how much of it will be released.
But cut to the chase. The bottom line here is, nothing good happens for the former president if parts of this affidavit are released, because what they will establish is the probable cause that DOJ had to search his personal office at Mar-a-Lago.
[19:05:09]
This really cuts against the grain for federal prosecutors. They like to protect their investigations. And DOJ argued here that giving the public a road map could possibly cause witnesses to be intimidated, could permit people who are interested in short-circuiting this investigation to do so.
But, ultimately, the judge -- and it may not stay in the hands of this magistrate judge, his ruling likely to be appealed to a district judge, and perhaps even further up. At the point in time where the affidavit is delayed, that will be some weeks, if not months down the road.
And, ultimately, it won`t be very nice for the former president.
CROSS: I don`t think any of this will be very nice for the former president, which brings me to "The New York Times," Katie.
Now, the DOJ subpoenaed the same White House documents they handed over to the January 6 Committee, with the implication being that that`s evidence of a crime.
Your take on that latest "New York Times" reporting?
KATIE PHANG, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it`s always important to know when the DOJ is making a move, because we`re always critical about the transparency that comes from the DOJ, which I am always fond of saying is the biggest law firm in the world, with limitless resources, and enough people to be able to throw stuff at and always have something to be combative.
And so when we know that the DOJ is making moves that we`re not aware of, it obviously raises eyebrows. It makes us wonder why. The key message is the one that you had in the beginning of the segment, which is the fact that this investigation and that subpoena is totally unrelated to the one that we`re talking about right now, which deals with declassified documents, and the mishandling of them by Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
So, the fact that we have yet another parallel investigation that`s being conducted, of which we are now made publicly aware, and the fact that the subpoena happened back in May leads us to believe that perhaps the DOJ, Merrick Garland at the helm, is a little bit further ahead than maybe we have given him credit for and that Trump is underestimating him for.
CROSS: Yes, he`s been quite methodical.
And I will say I was one of those people saying WTF when it came to the DOJ. So it is interesting to see how this has all played out. I don`t mind eating a little crow when we have to when justice prevails.
Joyce, let me ask you, because, before we move to Weisselberg, the fact Trump is kind of pretending that he wants the affidavit unredacted, again, his lawyers were in court. They didn`t ask for that. They didn`t make that move, which leads me to believe this is all a publicity stunt, because if he`s saying, no, release everything, knowing that they may not release it, then it makes him look innocent to his millions of sycophants and blind followers.
But do you think there`s a chance that he actually does want the affidavit released unredacted?
VANCE: Well, he doesn`t know what`s in the affidavit, but he knows that it got federal law enforcement into Mar-a-Lago into his home.
So, if he`s thinking logically -- and I think if is doing a lot of work in this sentence.
(LAUGHTER)
VANCE: But if he`s thinking logically, he will appreciate that it`s not in his best interests to have the detailed evidence that DOJ put together in this search warrant affidavit released.
And, Tiffany, something that we would do well to focus on here is that, unlike the January 6 investigation, where we really don`t know who the targets of that investigation are, it seems likely that they`re looking at the former president, but we don`t know for certain.
In this case involving classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, we know that Trump is at least a subject, if not a target, in this search -- in this investigation, because of the fact that one of the places they specifically obtained permission to search was his personal office.
The entire warrant was couched in terms of places where he and his staff had access. It seems like a very direct line towards the former president. And if he`s thinking logically, he won`t necessarily want evidence connecting him to purloined documents that should be retained in a secure fashion. He won`t want that connection may for everyone in the public to see.
CROSS: I mean, the key word if he`s thinking logically. I agree if he`s doing a lot of work there.
I want to move to Weisselberg, who, as you know, cut a plea deal. He`s saying that he`s not going to implicate Donald Trump in his testimony. Michael Cohen is saying, we don`t believe. You need more people.
Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER ATTORNEY/FIXER FOR DONALD TRUMP: So I disagree with that. And I will tell you why.
They`re going to ask him questions. And they already know the questions that they want to ask. And the questions that they`re going to ask, if he answers them truthfully, which, if he doesn`t, he`s really a fool, because he is looking at spending the rest of his life behind bars, will ultimately implicate other people, not just Donald, but other people at the Trump Org and in their business circles as well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROSS: Yes, I mean, Weisselberg is in his 70s. He was looking at 15 years.
[19:10:02]
Katie. do you think that he would risk more time? I mean, he`s already got this plea deal. Do you think that he will implicate Donald Trump in his testimony?
PHANG: No, Tiffany, we were always holding out looking to see whether or not Weisselberg would be willing to flip against somebody like Donald Trump.
Consider the following, though. And Joyce, I know, would agree with me as a former prosecutor as well. He had the option of going to trial. He said no. He`s been offered this plea deal. But think about it. He could have maybe taken a plea deal that just involved him going to prison, and that is it.
But he has his plea and his five months in jail at Rikers contingent upon him providing truthful testimony at the trial in October of the Trump Organization. To Michael Cohen`s point, you cannot put a company in jail. The company is operated by humanoids by people, there has to be people that were doing the wrong doings at that company.
And it was not just Allen Weisselberg. So Allen Weisselberg has the pressure to have to implicate people, maybe including Donald Trump, when he testifies at that trial in October. And we know that Donald Trump was the head of the Trump Organization up until 2017.
The indictment for Allen Weisselberg starts as far back as 2005. And so, by default, you`re going to have a huge net cast of different names that is not just Allen Weisselberg going into this trial in October.
CROSS: And I -- what you just said to me makes me wonder, because even if he`s saying he didn`t -- he won`t implicate Donald Trump, Joyce, what does that mean for Jared and Ivanka and other people who were a part of the Trump Organization or affiliated or in the periphery of the Trump Organization?
Also, what information do you think that Weisselberg might offer?
VANCE: Yes, so this is a very confusing plea agreement, I think, for many prosecutors. And Katie points to some of the elements of it that could lead us to wonder what exactly is going on here.
In the federal system, when folks plead guilty and cooperate, they have to disclose all of the information that they have about anyone, no matter who it is. They don`t get a carve-out. That`s not necessarily true in these state prosecutions, particularly in the Manhattan DA`s office, where they have a little bit more latitude when they cut deals.
But what`s confusing here is the fact that Weisselberg is willing to testify against the organization, but reportedly not against Trump. And there`s so much identity there between the two that it would seem almost implicitly, if he`s discussing these beneficial financial deals that he got, the logical question is, who authorized that?
CROSS: Yes.
VANCE: And who ultimately authorized that? It has to have been Donald Trump. That`s the testimony that the Manhattan DA`s office would need to complete a case against Trump.
So we have a situation where Weisselberg either thinks he`s smart enough to lie on the witness stand, is perhaps willing to face a longer time in prison than the five-month deal that he`s caught, or maybe he hopes that he can say he doesn`t know.
And I don`t know if Jared and Ivanka are realistic possibilities. But there`s something going on here that`s not usual, that`s not the sort of deal that we would expect to see in a case like this.
CROSS: Well, when it comes to family, I don`t know how loyal the Trump family is to each other. It`s being reported that it could have been a family member that informed on Donald Trump to the FBI.
The agony of not knowing who that is or who that might have been, what do you think, Katie? Do you think it`s possible that it was a family member who informed on him?
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: Is that a Fredo, a case of the Fredos, I`d say?
(LAUGHTER)
PHANG: Fredo.
So, the reality is, we have been talking about this warrant since last week. And Joyce and I talk about a lot of this stuff offline. You have to have fresh information for a search warrant. It can`t be stale. And so somebody has to have contemporaneous, real-time knowledge about the existence and the location of these documents.
It could not be premised on -- the search warrant cannot be premise on information from months ago. And so who else would know better, other than somebody who is a family member, who, frankly, between us and the rest of the world that`s watching the show, I don`t worry that about man staying up at night freaking out about who the hell`s going to turn him in and who`s sitting there snitching to the feds, because you`re right, they`re all self-serving.
They`re all looking out for their own hides, and they`re going to want to save themselves first, which is the Allen Weisselberg thing is kind of a head-scratcher, because he`s not, per se, family. But maybe Donald Trump looked at him as more family than his own blood.
But, ultimately, the search warrant being unsealed leads us to be concerned, though, if you`re the DOJ. Is the identity of an informant included within that information? And, if so, does that run the risk of physical harm, danger or something to that informant?
CROSS: And one thing to remember, while all of this is happening, the Trump family is raking in millions of dollars off all these legal woes. So we will definitely keep talking about it here.
And thank you, Katie Phang. I will see you Saturday morning at 7:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. Looking forward to it.
[19:15:00]
And, Joyce Vance, thanks so much for being here.
And coming up next for you folks at home here on THE REIDOUT: It`s the old familiar grift, like we just talked about, Trump raking in campaign contributions by playing the victim, something he`s very skilled at.
Meanwhile, there`s no letup in the dangerous rhetoric from Trump and his supporters. We`re going to get into that next.
THE REIDOUT continues right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:20:00]
CROSS: All right, amid the fallout of the Mar-a-Lago search, new reporting shows us magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who signed the affidavit, is facing a -- quote -- "storm of death threats" from right-wing extremists.
The Associated Press reports, Reinhart`s home address was posted on right- wing sites, along with antisemitic slurs. The South Florida synagogue he attends even had to cancel it`s Friday night Shabbat services.
This is all part of a broader attack on law enforcement. Federal agencies are warning threats and acts of violence directed at FBI personnel have skyrocketed in the aftermath of the search. And it`s not just coming from the dark corners of the Web, but from the top, that being Donald Trump himself.
Yesterday, the former president shared an article on his TRUTH Social network describing the FBI as a fascist organization, while new reporting from "The Washington Post" shows his PAC has raked in millions by fund- raising off this very raid, bombarding his supporters with more than 100 e- mails asking for money, using phrases in bold and all caps like, "They broke into my home," "They`re coming after you," and "This is insane."
On that last point, we can agree this is insane. So much for lowering the temperature.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers, for the most part, have been radio silent, failing to condemn these attacks or call on Donald Trump himself to stop, some of the more extreme members of the party, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, even egging it on.
Let`s talk about this. I want to bring in Javed Ali. He`s a former senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council. He`s also an associate professor at the University of Michigan`s Ford School of Public Policy.
Javed, very happy to have you here.
I know you have an op-ed in "The Hill" today titled "Violent Threats Against the FBI Make Us Less Safe."
For someone who worked at the FBI, what`s your overall reaction to this reporting? And explain what you mean by it makes us all less safe.
JAVED ALI, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yes, Tiffany, thanks for having me on.
And my bottom-line assessment -- and I have been saying this for the past week and several interviews -- is that this is outrageous. The fact that the FBI and its personnel now feel like they are under threat from extremists and people who are really angry over the search from now almost a couple of weeks ago, I mean, that shouldn`t happen.
It`s one thing for people to demand the FBI to be held accountable and for it to be transparent when it makes mistakes and does things wrong. We have seen unfortunate examples of that over the past few years with individuals in the organization.
But what happened a couple of weeks ago with executing the search warrant was not the FBI operating outside its normal bounds or doing anything illegal. It was doing its day-to-day job.
And so the point of the op-ed was to say that, as the FBI now is feeling a lot of pressure, and staff are concerned, and potentially -- or a field office was -- there was an attempted attack last week in Cincinnati. This has the potential to make the country less safe, because the FBI is there to keep the country safe every day.
And the more this goes on, the more it potentially could have this chilling effect within the organization. So that -- as a former FBI official, I`m really concerned on that front.
CROSS: Yes, it`s interesting hearing you lay all that out, because we keep saying this could be or this is what could happen.
And I feel like what could be is happening right now. He has millions of armed supporters, so he can manipulate at the drop of a dime. We saw that play out on January 6 on the U.S. Capitol. It was an attack on the United States government. We`re seeing it play out at FBI field offices.
At this point, I think it`s challenging for us to sit around and say what`s going to come. We have to deal with the reality of what`s happening now. What should we as a country, as individuals do to prepare? Because there are individual acts of violence? And what should the infrastructure of the country do to prepare for potential mass acts of violence that we saw -- like we saw on January 6, like we saw with a group of men trying to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan a few years ago?
ALI: Well, the rhetoric absolutely has to come down first. And that`s from elected politicians, as you mentioned earlier, but also the rhetoric that`s just out there in spades online that may not even be coming from politicians, but this wider pool of people who are just angry and upset, and, within that wider pool, a much smaller number of people who are willing to act out violently.
So we have to deal with the words and the rhetoric. And people have to be held accountable for putting this kind of toxic rhetoric out there. But people also have to understand that, if they do try to mobilize to violent action, like the person did last week in Cincinnati or someone tried earlier this week in Pittsburgh, and he was arrested, there are consequences for those actions.
You could be arrested for making threats. And you clearly will be arrested if you try to attack FBI personnel or, like in the case of the Cincinnati person, attack an FBI field office. So this is not a consequence-free thing that people are engaged in.
[19:25:01]
And if they`re willing to go to the extreme levels, there will be consequences for that action.
CROSS: You`re saying tone. We have to deal with the rhetoric. And I agree with you. But it`s not really rhetoric we can deal with.
I mean, you have millions of people tuning into a propaganda network every night. And then, as if that were not bad enough -- that`s an extremist network itself -- you have these fringe pop-up outlets, from OAN, to Newsmax. Then you have the social media component. That train has left the station. There is no let`s deal with the rhetoric.
At this point, I do think we have to have serious conversations around preparing for actual violence. People keep saying a civil war is coming. I would say a civil war is here. And I don`t mean to be hyperbolic. We can look at what has happened just in the past week alone, since all this has happened. We have had two people try to declare war with FBI field offices.
I don`t think, at this point, we`re going to all pack up our bags and go home and sing kumbaya. So, from a law enforcement angle, what would you recommend the infrastructure of the country do? Because not everybody has the security of Capitol Hill.
ALI: Well, the FBI and DHS put out a bulletin last Friday, I believe.
And so, clearly, within my former world, folks know that there`s a heightened threat environment out there. And I would have to believe, both in DHS and FBI -- and I happened to work in both organizations -- that the right steps are going forward, both in terms of physical security of people, but also ramping up efforts to make sure that, if there are active plots are threats out there, that they can be disrupted in advance.
So that`s probably how it`s going to be handled on the government side. And on the average everyday American side, it`s just trying to be a responsible citizen. And if this -- if you`re hearing this rhetoric from a neighbor or a friend or something like -- somebody like that, engaging in a conversation to try and cool things down.
But, right now, yes, the atmosphere in the U.S. is very heated. Hopefully, we can de-escalate things. But, in the meantime, I do believe there will be these attempts of these more lone offender type attacks that we have seen now over the past couple of weeks for people to try to act out.
Finally, I don`t think we`re going to see a large-scale act of violence. Hopefully, I`m right on that.
CROSS: We hope.
ALI: Because those are always harder to pull together.
But I do think that lone offender threat is the most likely one we`re going to see for quite some period of time.
CROSS: Yes.
Well, I hope you are right about not seeing a large-scale act of violence. And I just have to say, it`s just -- I hear your point about having conversation. I don`t know if it`s my ministry to have a conversation with a MAGA supporter. They have proven to be willfully ignorant in many ways.
So, good luck to the folks out there who are trying to do that.
Javed Ali, thank you so much for being here. We will have to have you back really soon.
And still ahead: Russia reportedly issues a frightening warning about a Ukrainian nuclear plant it`s occupying. We`re going to get a live report coming up next. This is really scary stuff, so you don`t want to miss this.
Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:32:45]
CROSS: Fears of a nuclear catastrophe are intensifying in Ukraine where Europe`s largest nuclear plant is on the front line. This is the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant under Russian control since March.
It has come under repeated shelling, with both Moscow and Kyiv trading blame. Ukrainian military intelligence has exclusively confirmed to NBC News that Russia has allegedly told workers at the power plant not to show up to work Friday. That`s a very frightening message.
Now, a spokeswoman for the Ukrainian Defense Ministry said this might be evidence that Russia is preparing large-scale provocations at the site. Russia, in turn, is accusing Ukraine of shelling the plant. Now, NBC News has not verified the claims of either side.
Today, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with the leaders of Turkey and the United Nations, as the situation turns critical. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres minced no words about the dangers ahead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONIO GUTERRES, UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL: We must tell it as it is. Any potential damage to Zaporizhzhia is suicide.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROSS: NBC News foreign correspondent Meagan Fitzgerald joins me now from Kyiv.
Meagan, it`s wonderful to see your face. I hope you`re safe over there.
Give us the latest. What`s going on?
MEAGAN FITZGERALD, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Tiffany, it`s great to be with you.
This is an incredibly serious and dangerous situation that certainly appears to be escalating. Just within the last couple of hours here, we heard from the U.S. State Department, who is saying that they are deeply concerned that Russia is occupying this nuclear power plant.
We know that Secretary Blinken has come out and said that the Russians are using this power plant as a military base. Ukrainian officials, based off of their intelligence, confirmed some 14 armored military vehicles that are parked inside that plant, though Russia is not confirming or denying that reporting, though, earlier this morning, as you mentioned, Russian military officials have accused Ukraine of planning a provocation at this plant.
Ukrainian officials saying, look, this is Russia, laying out the groundwork so that they can commit -- create an act inside that plant and then turn around and blame Ukraine.
Keep in mind that Russian officials have also threatened to shut this plant down, something that Ukrainian officials are saying could be incredibly dangerous if not done properly, because, keep in mind, the biggest issue, what makes this so dangerous is a leak, a leak of radioactive activity coming out of that plant that could sweep across Ukraine and then throughout Europe, and even beyond, endangering the lives of millions of people, Tiffany.
[19:35:16]
CROSS: That is incredibly frightening, Meagan. Thank you so much for bringing us the latest. Please keep us posted. We will definitely come back to you if there`s any movement.
Meagan Fitzgerald in Kyiv for us, thank you.
I want to bring into the conversation now Andy Weber. He`s a former assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs in the Obama administration. And he`s currently a senior fellow at the Council on Strategic Risks.
Andy, we were just talking this weekend. And I said I hope I don`t have to have you back to talk about a nuclear threat. And yet, days later, here we are.
You and I have talked about this a few times on the screen together. This is incredibly frightening stuff. I want to bring your attention first to a tweet from Turkey`s leader, Erdogan. This is from the verified Twitter account of the director of communications.
And, essentially, he`s saying that we -- he spoke at a press conference, and he said: "We express our concern about the ongoing conflict around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. We do not want to experience a new Chernobyl case."
How close are we to experiencing a new Chernobyl case?
ANDY WEBER, FORMER U.S. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, it`s hard to say, because there`s so much information, much of it unverified.
But, clearly, this reactor is at the breaking point. The Ukrainian workers have been essentially hostages operating the reactor safely for nearly six months at the point of a Russian gun, with a Russian gun to their heads. And the stress of that is just unbelievable, and it could lead to a catastrophic safety incident.
And then, more recently, the Russians have come up -- some Russian military commander, no doubt with the approval of the Russian commander in chief, Vladimir Putin, decided it would be a great idea to stage artillery at the plant, on the theory that the Ukrainians wouldn`t counterattack.
So they`re using it as a safe zone for heavy military equipment and shelling from the plant across the river into Ukrainian-occupied -- or Ukrainian-held territory. This is a disaster that we have seen in the making for many, many months.
And one person in Moscow needs to step back and avert this disaster by pulling out his Russian military forces from this plant and making it into some kind of -- as the U.N. secretary-general has called for, a demilitarized zone, so we can avoid a nuclear crisis.
CROSS: I don`t have a lot of faith that that one person in Russia is going to do that.
You brought up the Ukrainian workers. And I just want to make it clear for our viewers, working in a very intense environment that way, under those circumstances, is exhausting. It`s comparable, I would say, to being an air traffic controller working for hours on end with a gun to your head or an E.R. doctor working two hours on end with a gun to your head. It`s virtually impossible to function that way.
Some of these very Ukrainian workers who worked at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant have gone missing. Any idea what you surmise could have possibly happened to them?
WEBER: Well, apparently, the Russian occupiers of this facility have become increasingly paranoid.
And their security forces are targeting specific Ukrainian workers, some of whom have disappeared, for a fate unknown. It`s outrageous. I mean, it is absolute barbarism, and it needs to stop. The U.N. secretary-general today said all the right things. But, without Russian cooperation, this disaster will become inevitable.
CROSS: Well, I mean, Russia has made it clear. Russia is standing alone on the world stage -- well, save for China. They have locked arms.
So we don`t anticipate that Vladimir Putin is going to make the right decision here. We will all be watching to see what happens tomorrow.
But, big picture, I do want to ask your opinion. Is there a world where Vladimir Putin is aiming an armed nuke at the United States? And, with him taking control of this Zaporizhzhia site, completely getting rid of the Ukrainian workers, would that help his efforts to do that?
WEBER: Well, earlier in the war, President Putin recklessly threatened the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Any use of nuclear weapons could risk an all-out nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States. So it`s totally inappropriate, absolutely reckless to even be talking this way about using nuclear weapons in warfare.
This particular situation at the plant could become a flash point in the confusion of a potential meltdown of the reactor and the leakage of radiation into the environment. It could be an ecological disaster worse than Fukushima perhaps.
[19:40:10]
But it`s avoidable. And the way to avoid it is to stop staging military forces on a nuclear plant and shelling Ukrainians from that nuclear plant. The U.N. has to get involved. The IAEA, which has been denied access by Russia, needs to have access to this plant, so they can understand the safety situation.
CROSS: Yes.
Yes, a very famous movie, "Crimson Tide," Denzel Washington, his character, he says, in nuclear war, the only winner is war itself. There really are no winners. So I wonder if Vladimir Putin has that in mind this evening.
We will certainly keep our eyes on what`s happening at Zaporizhzhia tomorrow.
Mr. Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Andy Weber, thanks so much for being here. I have a feeling we will share the screen again really soon.
And coming up next, big changes in the experts` prediction about the upcoming election. Even Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is now having doubts about his party`s chances of success. We`re going to talk about the Upper Chamber and the Lower Chamber when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:45:53]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): I think there`s probably a greater likelihood the House flips than the Senate. Senate races are just different. They`re statewide. Candidate quality has a lot to do with the outcome.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROSS: Well, you know it`s bad when even Mitch McConnell says you might lose.
Now, what was once supposed to be a favorable year for Republicans, The Cook Political Report has now declared control of the Senate should be a tossup, and moved the Pennsylvania Senate race between Democrat John Fetterman and Republican Mehmet Oz to -- quote -- "lean Democratic."
All of this comes as Fetterman has been absolutely dominating Dr. Oz on social media for being a carpetbagger who still lives in New Jersey, for owning 10 homes, and most recently over a video Oz posted of a shopping trip where he not only got the name of the supermarket wrong, but said he was shopping for crudites.
Here`s how Fetterman responded.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LT. GOV. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): And if this looks anything other than a veggie tray to you, then I am not your candidate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROSS: And he`s not only struggling -- he`s not the only struggling Republican candidate out there.
There`s also J.D. Vance, whose Ohio Senate campaign Republicans were already worried about before he had comments go viral that appeared to show him saying that people in abusive relationships should stay together for the sake of their family. He says those comments were taken out of context.
There`s also the Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker, who`s made a series of gaffes far too many to get into here, and many, many confusing remarks. And in a recent campaign ad, his ex-wife says he held a gun to her head and threatened to kill her.
Important to note, in that ad, she said "the first time he held a gun to my head," indicating that perhaps there were more times.
Joining me now is Fernand Amandi. He`s a pollster and MSNBC political analyst.
Fernand, my friend, this is quite a interesting slate of candidates that Republicans have put out and I`m just curious to hear from you how much of a boost this is for Democrats, because if Pennsylvania in fact does go blue, it will mean that Dems have a little less pressure defending some of their other states, like Georgia, Nevada, or Arizona.
Speaking of, how is Herschel Walker polling so closely to Warnock? But we will start with the first one. What do you say?
FERNAND AMANDI, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, Tiffany, all you got to do is listen to what Mitch McConnell said near at the top of the segment in that clip you played. That`s a little MAGA GOP CYA: I didn`t do it. I didn`t recruit these bad candidates.
And what it means is, he`s acknowledging what a lot of us are seeing in the polling and what now the money is saying too, Tiffany, that the Republican chances of controlling and taking back the Senate look very, very difficult now.
And I think, again, if you follow that money, for me, the biggest indicator of the week is when the RSCC, the Senate committee that the Republicans have controlling these Senate races, they all of a sudden pulled tens of millions of dollars in buys scheduled.
And, Tiffany, I think it is a direct reaction to the fact that some of these dud extremist candidates just aren`t closing the sale. And it`s what has them all panicked right now.
CROSS: Well, here`s the things that are concerning me, Fernand, because I hear what you`re saying. And I think it`s a sign, it says something that Mitch McConnell is concerned.
However, I do think about the rampant voter suppression happening across the country. I think about partisan poll watchers. I think about these folks who are running how elections are happening who perhaps have been emboldened since January 6. And I wonder if this is not a fair playing field.
Could voters so overwhelmingly be frightened at what they`re seeing out of the Republican Party that, once again, they will leapfrog over these kinds of tactics to suppress the will of the people?
AMANDI: Well, there has to be a way to get that done, Tiffany, because, fundamentally, right now, what is on the ballot this November?
Let`s not make any mistake about it. And I think the Liz Cheney results from this week made it crystal clear. The choice is not between Democrat and Republican. It`s between democracy and fascism.
But you`re right. The Republican playbook is to rig the system and make voting the most difficult thing possible. So, you`re asking a lot of these Democratic candidates to win in states with one hand tied behind their back, a little pepper spray thrown in their faces, when you take into consideration all of these efforts that the Republicans are doing in these states to make voting more difficult and to target certain voters.
[19:50:10]
We certainly see it everywhere, but it`s especially happening here even in my home state of Florida, which is where, in an otherwise environment where things are looking really difficult now for the Republicans and have been in these last two weeks, it`s still something you have to contend with.
And you`re right. You cannot take them for granted, because what they`re doing is trying to monkey it up.
CROSS: Yes.
And you talked about targeting certain voters. Certainly, you and I have talked plenty about that, targeting black voters. We saw that in 2016, but especially targeting Latino voters.
When I did my Hispanic Heritage Month special down in Miami with you a few months ago, back in October, we talked a lot about that. And they said that`s such a huge problem. They will do Spanish-language ads with disinformation and misinformation.
And we`re seeing, since the abortion, Roe v. Wade overturned, we`re seeing a bit of a shift among Latino voters, who are shifting away from the Republican Party for that ruling.
I don`t know, Fernand. I want to hear from you, because I`d argue some of that is geographic. The Latino community is a big umbrella. There is no Latino vote. There are Latino voters.
AMANDI: That is exactly right.
And it`s all a function of where they are also geographically, Tiffany. But, again, the big earthquake that has changed the dynamic of this entire race, sure, the Inflation Reduction Act is going to help. Biden`s had a really couple of strong weeks, and he`s turned his fortunes around. His approval rating is inching up.
But what is propelling this and what has upended the dynamic is absolutely the Supreme Court`s ruling ending reproductive freedom when it comes to the Roe vs. Wade decision. And Hispanic voters are saying to the Republican Party in the polling that we`re seeing and others are conducting that they went too far, that they overreached.
And even despite the fact that many Hispanic voters, yes, personally, Tiffany, when it comes to their personal perspective, may have a more pro- life perspective, that does not mean that they want to see the government making these decisions for other women and other families.
And that is why you have seen that Hispanic vote for the Democrats at the national level stabilize, and, if anything, increase back to 2018 levels, which is where that blue wave propelled Democrats to capture the Congress and have a counterpunch to the Trump administration and the White House.
And that`s the conditions we`re starting to see now as we go into these final two months.
CROSS: Yes, I think you made some really good points there, Fernand.
And we -- again, you and I have talked about this plenty. Races are often one on the margins. And there are still pockets of communities who have no outreach from campaigns, like the AAPI community, Latino voters, certainly, and even the indigenous community.
I mean, you see that in places like in Alaska, with the Alaskan Natives, and even in some of the states here where there are large Native American populations. So I hope people are paying attention to the rising majority of America, my friend.
Fernand, I think I`m going to see you on Saturday on "THE CROSS CONNECTION." Is that right?
AMANDI: Listen, if you don`t see me there, I will be watching.
(LAUGHTER)
AMANDI: But, yes, the plan is to do it on Saturday, my favorite weekend show, by the way, "THE CROSS CONNECTION," or at least one of them. That`s one of my faves.
CROSS: Thank you, Fernand. Thank you.
I will see you Saturday morning on "THE CROSS CONNECTION," and thank you for being with me tonight as I fill in for Ms. Joy Reid.
And coming up next: Wisconsin provides an enlightening case study in the perils of backing Trump`s big lie.
We`re back in a sec.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:58:07]
CROSS: OK, listen up, if you want a good case study in just how disastrous the big lie has been for the Republican Party, look no further than Wisconsin, the state President Biden won by about 21,000 votes.
Now, this perennial swing state is the current incubator for the Republican Party`s continuing quest to decertify the 2020 election results. This is happening despite multiple nonpartisan reviews and audits on that election in Wisconsin that found zero evidence, zero, of widespread fraud in the battleground state, none, zippy.
But that hasn`t stopped Republicans from launching a taxpayer-funded investigation largely inspired by the Arizona fraudit. Yes, the Wisconsin Republican Party led by the state`s assembly speaker, Robin Vos, thought it would be a good idea to waste about one million taxpayer dollars on this wild goose chase.
Now, last year, Vos hired a former conservative state Supreme Court justice, Michael Gableman, to lead that investigation. This was just hours after Donald Trump accused Vos of participating in a -- quote -- "cover-up" of the 2020 elections.
Well, yesterday, a Wisconsin judge provided a scathing review of Gableman`s work. And, yes, it ain`t pretty. The judge admonished Gableman for accomplishing nothing and failing to produce required weekly progress reports, failing to conduct witness interviews, and failing to gather any data at all.
Now, Gableman did try to avoid scrutiny by giving employees code names. Yes, that`s what Wisconsin taxpayers paid $1 million for. Now, last week, Gableman was fired after he and Trump turned on Robin Vos for refusing to break the law.
Vos is now claiming that the guy he hired, Gableman, could lose his law license for his misconduct. In firing Gableman, Vos told reporters that the costly venture was -- quote -- "worthwhile."
Was it, though? He also said that the Wisconsin Republican Caucus would now turn their focus to banning abortions, stripping voting rights and strengthening their legislative power.
What a mess. It sounds like all the GOP. But this is what the big lie gets you.
I would like to note that, this fall, Wisconsin voters will get to decide if they want to elect more election deniers, like Republican Tim Michels, who`s looking to unseat the current Democratic governor, Tony Evers, or Senate -- Senator Ron Johnson, who is being challenged by Democrat Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes.
The choice is yours.
All right, that does it for me. That`s tonight`s REIDOUT.
But don`t go anywhere, because "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now.