tv The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell MSNBC June 29, 2022 10:00pm-11:00pm PDT
ambitions, most voters do have a preference for a supreme court justices being nominated by a republican, or by a democrat. and if you are prepared to live with supreme court justices from either party, then you are a very unusual voter. so this is the product of all of those votes, all of those people who went out and voted for joe biden, that is how this will happened tomorrow. >> a little piece of good news, i'm looking forward to your show tonight, lawrence. >> thank, you ali, thank you. tonight, we have a new reason -- a new apparent reason -- why the january 6th committee rushed into that special session yesterday, to hear the public testimony of cassidy hutchinson. they want the white house counsel. they want him. and that's why they had to have that hearing yesterday. because cassidy hutchinson's
testimony fully justified the subpoena to trump white house counsel pat cipollone that the committee issued today. the last time a president was destroyed by a congressional investigation, the white house counsel was a key witness. richard nixon's white house counsel, john dean, helped bring down the nixon presidency, with his testimony in the watergate hearings. and now it looks like pat cipollone could be the witness who locks in donald trump's guilt for the january 6th committee. when presidents break the law, the white house counsel knows. the white house counsel's job is to prevent presidents from breaking the law, among other things. that is to say, prevent them from breaking the law intentionally or, as can happen, unintentionally. when someone in the white house has a bright idea, like banning all muslims from entering the
country, it is the white house counsel's job to say, we can't do that, that's unconstitutional. the white house counsel is not the president's personal lawyer. the white house counsel does not represent the president as a lawyer. the white house counsel represents the constitution. the white house counsel is the defender of the constitution, the principal defender of the constitution and the white house. the white house counsel is the constitution cop in the white house. the white house counsel also has other duties, like advising on judicial appointments. but there is nothing in the white house counsel's work that is protected by the attorney client privilege with the client being the president. some of the communication between the president and the white house counsel could, arguably, the protected by executive privilege, as long as that president is still in
office. but that executive privilege does not outlive the president's term in office. that does not mean that pat cipollone will not try to hide behind those privileges and response to the committee's subpoena. he's being ordered to testify exactly one week from now. and he has no legal right not to show up for that testimony. in response to certain questions, he might try to claim attorney client privilege or executive privilege. those will be legally false claims. but the committee doesn't really have the power to force him to answer those questions on the spot if he claims as false privileges. the privilege that pat cipollone does have, and that he might need to invoke, is the fifth amendment right not to incriminate himself in a possible crimes that he may have committed. and here is one passage in
cassidy hutchinson's testimony yesterday that gives pat cipollone a fully valid claim of his fifth amendment right not to answer the question that i would ask him about this testimony. >> on january 3rd, mr. cipollone had approached me, knowing that mark had raised the prospect of going up to the capitol on january 6th. mr. cipollone and i had a brief, private conversation where he said, to me, we need to make sure that this doesn't happen. this would be, legally, a terrible idea for us. we have serious legal concerns if you go up to the capitol that day. and he then urged me to continue relaying that to mr. meadows. because it's my understanding that mr. cipollone thought that mr. meadows was indeed pushing this along with the president.
>> and we understand, ms. hutchinson, that you also spoke to mr. cipollone on the morning of the sixth, as you were about to go to the rally on the ellipse. and mr. cipollone said something to you like, make sure the movement to be capitol does not happen. is that correct? >> that's correct. i saw mr. cipollone just before i walked out onto west exec that morning. and mr. cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure we don't go up to the capitol, cassidy. keep in touch with me. we are going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen. >> what do you mean we? we? we are going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen? we are going to get charged. mr. cipollone, what do you mean,
we are going to get charged? what were you going to get charged with if donald trump went to the capitol on january 6th? >> in the days leading up to the sixth, we had conversations about potentially leading up to obstructing justice or defrauding the electoral count. >> let's hear about some of those concerns that you mentioned earlier in one of your interviews with us. >> having a private conversation with pat late in the afternoon, the third or the fourth, that pat was concerned -- it looked like we were obstructing justice, or obstructing the electoral college count. and i apologize for probably not being very [inaudible] my legal terms here. that it looked like we were
obstructing what was happening on capitol hill. and he was also worried that it would look like we were inciting a riot or encouraging a riot at the capitol. >> the committee wants to talk to mr. cipollone about more than that, much more than that. and their lead the letter to pat cipollone, the committee told him that they have questions about, quote, the submission of fake electoral ballots to congress and the executive branch, the attempted appointment of jeffrey clark as acting attorney general, and efforts to interfere with the congressional certification of the electoral college results on january 6th, 2021. the committee also revealed that cipollone, quote, previously sat for an informal interview with the select committee on august 13th, 2022. cipollone's father came to this country as an immigrant from italy who donald trump was would have prevented from entering the united states, had
trump been in power at the time. pat cipollone's father worked at a factory. his mother was a homemaker. he lived in the bronx as a child before his family moved to kentucky, where he attended a catholic high school and then a catholic college. he was a leader of the right-wing federalist society at the university of chicago law school when he served as one of three clerks to a federal judge on the sixth circuit court of appeals. he helped to create the least intellectual atmosphere i've ever heard of in a federal appeals court judges chambers. the new york times reported in 2019, a fellow clerk, jennifer hall, recalled sitting in judge boggs's bookshelf lined chambers between mr. cipollone and another clerk, steven vaughan, now a trade lawyer in washington. they would yell at each other over me, she recalled, listening to rush limbaugh. pat cipollone and his wife were close friends with foxes laura
ingraham, and have ten children. he was making a few million dollars as a lawyer a year before joining the trump white house and he is surely making at least that much now. the good news is, pat cipollone is a lawyer, which means he knows that fighting the subpoena in court is hopeless. but the bad news is, he is a ditto head. rush limbaugh fondly called his devoted audience ditto, ditto heads meaning they just said ditto to everything, every crazy thing rush limbaugh said. pat saponi is as hard-core conservative as anyone who worked in the trump white house. he was part of the defense team when donald trump's first impeachment trial in the united states senate. he saw nothing wrong with donald trump trying to extort ukraine's president zelenskyy by asking presidents olimpiyskiy to smear joe biden in exchange for donald trump sending military aid to
ukraine. pat cipollone agreed with donald trump that his extortion phone call to president zelenskyy was a perfect phone call. we learned today that ali alexander, who was involved in organizing the trump rally on january 6th that occurred before the attack on the capitol testified to a washington d. c. grand jury on friday, which is just about six months after he testified in an eight hour deposition to the january 6th committee. so, pat cipollone knows that the washington d. c. grand jury is operating about six months behind the january six committee's investigation. so, if he tries to fight this subpoena, he might be facing another one. six months from now. with no way out from that one. joining us now is democratic congressman jamie raskin of maryland, a member of the house
select committee investigating the january 6th attack on the capitol. he served as lead impeachment manager in the second impeachment trial of donald trump. thank you very much for joining us tonight. it seemed to me the speed of the cipollone subpoena, the day after that testimony yesterday -- seems to indicate that this was a plan, that you would get this testimony were passed cipollone's in the thick of it, all the way through the testimony, which clearly justifies the subpoena sent today. >> pat cipollone is a material witness. he has a huge volume of relevant evidence. and he was there at every level of each of these assaults on democracy and the rule of law. so, he would know a lot about the presidents attempt to stage a mini coup at the department of justice. he may know something about the counterfeit elector plot.
he may know something about the -- trump's attempts to shake down different election officials, like secretary of state raffensperger. he certainly knows about the effort to force mike pence to step outside of his constitutional role and reject electoral college votes. and, as we heard just yesterday, from cassidy hutchinson, undoubtedly he knew a lot about what was going on with armed followers of the president in the crowd. and the formation of a mob that came to storm the capitol to try to interfere and successfully did interfere with the counting of electoral college votes. so as the white house counsel, he has a lot to tell us. and i'm hopeful that we will be able to hear from him soon. >> did he say anything in his discussion with the committee back in april that contradicts anything we heard from cassidy hutchinson yesterday?
>> i can't reveal anything about anybody's private conversations with the committee at this point. but when anything is ready to be revealed, you will know it, obviously. and anything that's relevant and significant, i think we will make public. but at this point, i've not seen anything that has contradicted, on the record, anything that cassidy hutchinson said. i know there are now anonymously sourced allegations about what someone is saying or what someone might say. that's very different from someone going under oath and contradicting it. i found her to be an entirely credible witness, who spoke with great candor and honesty to the committee. but if other people have other interpretations of particular incidents or events i would
love to hear from them as well. but nobody has contradicted the central important evidence that came out yesterday. donald trump knew that he had heavily armed followers in the crowd and in fact wanted to waive them in and take down the metal detector so they could blend in with the rest of the crowd, swelling the size of the crowd before the march on the capitol. nobody has contradicted that and that, to me, is the central and most important thing that we learned yesterday. >> you showed additional witnesses on the video today saying that they knew donald trump wanted to go to the capitol on january 6th, one witness knew it before january sixth, another new it on january 6th. has there been any witnesses testifying the committee saying the opposite? saying no, i know donald trump did not want to go to the capitol on january 6th?
>> no. i have seen multiple accounts that he wanted very much to go. and to be part of it. and of course, he said he would be part of it. he said he was going to go with the rally. we are going to march to the capitol, we will go to the capito and iill be there with you. in fact, there are a lot of rioters who later stated that they thought that trump was somewhere in the crowd. you can see lots of visual evidence of people saying to the officers, donald trump invited us here. your boss told us to come here, and they thought that they somehow had the participation and the sanction of donald trump in everything that they were doing, because he led them to believe that. of course, both the house and senate had majority votes finding that trump had incited the insurrection, but now we have so much more evidence to
show that he not just incited the insurrection, but he actually helped to form it, summon the mob, to create the event, and to stage the whole arrangement for the march. >> jamie raskin, thank you very much for leading off our discussion tonight. >> you got it. >> thank you. joining us now is edward casper, one of the lawyers representing h capitol police officers who have filed a civil lawsuit against donald trump for the attack on the capital. thank you very much for joining us tonight. it seemed to me as i was watching the hearing yesterday that this was the most important discovery session that you have had so far. you now have evidence that the president knew that the mob he was encouraging to go to the capitol was equipped with weapons, weapons to go into battle with capitol police officers. what did you learn from the hearing tomorrow that you think affects your case,
the hearing yesterday? >> that is right, lawrence. with the hearing did yesterday was bring into sharp focus would a lot of the public evidence already was suggesting. but the hearing yesterday made that concrete. there can be no doubt now that the president intended to unleash a violent mob on the capitol to use force to stop congress from doing its job to certify the election. we heard yesterday how the president knew that the crowd that he assembled at the very time thought congress was gathering to certify the election, they knew that the mob, the crowd, was armed and dangerous. he knew that he wanted the crowd to go to the capitol. we cannot lose sight of the fact that there was not only the capitol that he was sending the crowd to. who is sending the crowd to the
u.s. capitol police officers who were there, doing their job to protect it. they were brutally attacked by this crowd that the former president sent. he needs to be held accountable for it. >> it seems to me that a washington d.c. jury hearing this case, and seeing this evidence, they don't need the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. that is a criminal standard. in a civil standard, it is a more reasonable belief. do you believe that this is the way it was? it seems easy to see them returning 100 million dollar verdict for each one of these plaintiffs, 700, 800 million dollar verdict against donald trump. this is the kind of case that could absolutely bankrupt him. >> one reason the capitol police officers whom i represent are bring this case is to see that this kind of thing doesn't happen again. for that to happen, the president has to be held accountable. because accountability is the deterrence that is going to pull this country back from the brink of authoritarianism. once
people see that he can be held accountable for engaging in this kind of political violence, we hope that this kind of violence will not be likely to happen again. >> what more evidence do you need in terms of what you would need to present to a jury? you have cassidy hutchinson's testimony that will be available to you by the time you get to a jury, you would presumably have the full report of this committee. >> lawrence, yes, i think that is right. i think the committee report is going to be incredibly important to outlining the kinds of evidence that is going to prove our claims. i think it is undeniable now, though, that the president intended to use force to stop congress from doing its job. that alone is enough for us to hold the president accountable. >> edward casper, thank you very much for joining us tonight, really appreciate it. >> thank you, lawrence.
>> coming up, congressman jamie raskin's law professor was also attorney general merrick garland's constitutional law professor. and he was also barack obama's constitutional law professor, and he is our next guest. harvard law professor laurence tribe joins us next. and when he speaks, i take notes. he speaks, i take notes. ♪ ♪ ♪♪ voltaren. the joy of movement. ♪♪
we've been streaming all day from every room. the power and speed of this super-sonic wifi from xfinity is incredible. mom! mass speeds was my idea, remember? get minion net, with speeds of up to one minion bite per hour. [ low screaming ] but that was an epic fail. with xfi we can stream, share, swipe, like... impress your mom with super-sonic wifi. it's unbeatable internet for a more unbeatable gru. it's undeniable. i mean, you.
republicans to accept. and i think we all have to recognize and understand what it means to say those words and what it means that those things happened. but the reality that we face today as republicans, as we think about the choice in front of us, we have to choose. because republicans cannot both be loyal to donald trump and loyal to the constitution. at this moment -- [applause] [applause] >> that is a largely republican audience at the reagan library tonight, in california, where liz cheney was speaking. here is more of what she had to say. >> at this moment, we are confronting a domestic threat
that we have never faced before. and that is a former president who is attempting to unravel the foundations of our constitutional republic. and he is aided by republican leaders and elected officials who made themselves willing hostages to this dangerous and irrational man. so in my party are embracing former president trump. and even after all we have seen, they are enabling his lies. >> joining us now is lawrence tribe, constitutional law scholar and university professor of constitutional law and narratives at harvard law school. thank you very much for joining us tonight. i want to get an answer, if you have one, to what you think pat cipollone was worried about if donald trump went to the capitol. he seems to think that that would have gotten, we -- he said we -- we will be charged with
everything, if that happens. but it's not clear to me what is added to the criminality, by donald trump actually going up to the capitol. >> that puts him in the middle of the action. he's not just inciting. but he is aiding and abetting and participating in a violent insurrection, one whose violence he knows about, when pat cipollone uses the word we, like you, i wondered whether that was the royal we. whether he thought perhaps he should have acted sooner, perhaps he was involved with donald trump and his planning of these events. it was obvious that it was no surprise to trump. it was a happy thing but no surprise, that the people who came to be with him were armed and dangerous. in fact, he specifically said, take down the magnetometers so that these guys can come in with their ar-15s.
i know they are not going for me. that was the most stunning and astonishing thing. who would they be going for? might it be mike pence, the very guy that trump tried to get into trouble by saying that he was a coward after it looked like this mob had gone after pence, perhaps around the same time they had erected a gallows? so, i don't blame mr. cipollone. he may have some fifth amendment privileges to assert when he sits down. there's no fifth amendment privilege to just stay home. and the idea that he has executive privileges, triply defeated -- it's defeated by the fact that the current president holds the privilege. it's the defeated by the fact that there is a crime fraud exception. it's defeated by the large swaths of waiver that already seem to occur.
actually, i could throw in another one. a lot of the conversations were not with the president. so, he has no legitimate basis for staying away and he truly doesn't want to be a coward when -- somebody like this young woman, who was a real patriot, had the spine to show up and answer questions even though she was a loyal trump or. >> there could be -- i was thinking, as we were hearing the testimony about mark meadows gazing at his phone when the city's burning -- one wonders how many ginni thomas messages were on his phone that he was gazing at on january 6th. and what that would mean to the supreme court, to be in that -- involved in that way on january 6th. >> i've never seen anything like it before. there is a law, 18 usc, section 455, it makes it illegal -- it doesn't have an enforcement mechanism -- but illegal for a justice of
the supreme court to take part in a case in which his spouse or her spouse looks like they are involved. well, she was involved in the case in which he was the one and only vote who said that the documents in the archives that showed how involved she was should be suppressed. 8 to 1 court disagree. so, clearly the committee wants to hear from her. she seems to be backpedalling. she said she would be glad to come around but they called her bluff and she said, my husband and i are having a tough time now because we are getting threats as a result of the abortion decision. oh, poor, poor ginni. what about the tens of millions of people whose lives are hurt by that decision, which was the result of a kind of cabal in the supreme court? i'm getting ahead of myself. what else -- >> if you had a minute with
your former student, merrick garland, what would you present to him as the legal highlights of yesterday's hearing? >> i guess i would say, merrick, i hope you watch carefully and you will see, as i did, the ravings of a man who was desperate, by any means possible, to prevent the transfer of power. the fact that his first national security adviser, mike flynn, took the fifth when they asked, do you believe in the peaceful transfer of power, tells you a lot of what you need to know about donald trump's state of mind. but the fact that -- i hope you notice, merrick -- the fact that he said he wasn't worried about these guns going after him, well, that means he sure didn't think it was the antifa group. it means he had some advanced knowledge of what those guns were for. and surely they were not just for decorous purposes. these people were armed, dangerous, violent, and
fomented it. so, i hope you won't be distracted, merrick, by some people's claims that we don't really know his state of mind, whatever his state of mind was. keep in mind that even if you genuinely believe that the [ irs has stolen $11,780 from you. i use that number because it's familiar from the raffensperger dialogue. even if you really believe they stole it, you can't break into fort knox or lead an armed mob up the stairs of fortune ox to grab the money. that's what we seem to have seen. so, merrick, i hope you look up the u.s. code, the section on conspiracy, to defraud the u.s., the section on witness tampering, the section on corrupt attempts to impede an official proceeding, inciting or assisting an insurrection. but merrick, you are a great student, you don't need me to remind you of all that. what you need to focus on is how dangerous it would be to
let this be unaccountable. because that would mean, truly, no future president would never have any incentives to obey the law if, by violating it, he could hang on to power forever. that's what, i guess, i would tell him. and then i would say, would you like a drink? [laughs] >> he was very lucky to have you as a teacher when he did. and the country would be lucky if he was listening to his teacher tonight. professor laurence tribe, thank you so much for joining us again tonight. >> thank you, lawrence. >> and coming up, forced birth 's for 12-year-old girls who are raped and incest victims is now a republican policy. and we have the video to prove that. that's next.
will be sworn in at 12 noon 20 as the 116th supreme court justice and the first black woman to serve as a supreme court justice. she will replace justice stephen breyer, who will retire tomorrow. confidence in the supreme court is at a new low with poland finding 50% 57% of americans believe the decision to overturn roe v. wade with mostly based on politics, not law. you have to travel far from washington to find a republican politician who is willing to admit that the
supreme court, what the supreme court has done to the victims of rape and incest and what is going to happen now to 12 year old girls who are forced to give birth. here is philip gunn, the speaker of the house of representatives in the state of mississippi. >> so that 12-year-old child molested by her father, or uncle should carry that child to term? [inaudible] >> that is my personal belief. i believe life begins at conception. and let me say this, let me say this, i want today to be about the roe v. wade decision. i want today to be about the fact that we have seen an end to abortion in this country. >> joining us now is michelle goodwin, chancellors professor at the university of california irvine, she is the author of policing the womb, her latest
new york times opinion piece is titled no justice alito, reproductive justice is in the constitution. thank you very much for joining us tonight. when i heard philip gunn say that, he was asked if a 12 year old child molested by her father or uncle should carry that child to term and he said yes, he said my personal belief is life begins at conception. i wondered if you had an opportunity to speak with him, assuming he was a person of enough goodwill to have a fair conversation about this, what would you tell him about that 12 year old girl? >> what has made it difficult in these times, lawrence, is the fact that some of what we see coming out of state legislatures like mississippi, and coming out of the mouths of legislators such as mr. philip
gunn, is something so deeply unfathomable, that is so insensitive, that it is kind of rooted in a space that provides no empathy, or compassion. but it is rooted, as he said, in his own personal beliefs, where his personal beliefs have become weaponized against vulnerable girls. and it seems to me that there has been a galvanization amongst those in the gop and state legislatures to support that point of view. lawrence, right from the top, it is a deadly proposition. it is a death sentence for those girls. it is a death sentence in mississippi, which has one of the highest maternal mortality rates, not just in our country, but in all of the developed world. it is essentially sending that girl into a path of destruction. it
is absurdest, lawrence, really, to think about about ten year olds becoming mothers by the force and will of individuals in the state legislator that they don't even know. in another way, it is another form of a sexual violation. >> the difference in washington when that question comes up is republican politicians in washington run away from it, pretend it doesn't happen, what he did is say this is my belief. this is what i want to happen in these cases. and the reason we showed the video, among other things, is it is so rare to get a republican politician to not fight the concept, and say basically yes, that is exactly what we are for. >> well, so many are saying that that is exactly what they are for. but of course, it has no rooting, or bearing in law. the 13th amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. it was understood that there were girls, 11, 12 years old who were forced into
reproduction in the american system. it was sojourner truth spoke about, and i bore 13 children and saw each one stat from my arms and nobody heard my cry about god. there are abolitionists who are listening and they listened in congress and that is why they drafted the 13th amendment that would abolish involuntary servitude, such as what is being proposed today. the real travesty is that we have a supreme court that fails to take into account that version of originalism, that textualism that fails to heed historian fails to understand the debates at the time of the 13th amendment, and the 14th amendment. because exactly what is being proposed is what was struck down by those very amendments. what he is proposing to do two to the black girls, white girls, and all others in mississippi is was something that our--that the legislators who drafted and ratified the 13th amendment
would not stand. >> how would you expect a supreme court deliberation to change in the next term with ketanji brown jackson as a supreme court justice? >> i think what she is going to bring to the court is a level of sophistication, knowledge, experience, carrying in many ways the weight of history within her, and on her shoulders. in such a way that would educate fellow members of the judiciary, of the supreme court. there is a way that clearly one can read the dobbs decision where there is not the centering of the lives of the most vulnerable in society. there is not the centering of black women at all. and what is so ironic about that is that the 13th and 14th amendment which was actually referenced by justice alito was actually an act to free black people from bondage. you would not even think that given the way that the supreme court has
addressed the 14th amendment. you would think that it was meant for something else, when very clearly, it asked the question, what was the purpose of the 14th amendment? it was to eliminate slavery that was still persisting even after the 13th amendment. i think that she will help bring a sophistication that will help illuminate so many issues in that regard and beyond. i am really excited about what will happen with judge ketanji brown jackson becoming justice jackson. >> professor michele goodwin, thank you very much for joining us tonight. we all learn something when you join us. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> coming up, russian forces launched an airstrike on a shopping mall in ukraine killing at least 20 people, another war crime from vladimir putin, an attack that ukraine's president zelenskyy describes as one of the most defiant terrorist acts in european history. former u.s. ambassador
for people living with h-i-v, keep being you. and ask your doctor about biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in certain adults. it's not a cure, but with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to and stay undetectable. that's when the amount of virus is so low it cannot be measured by a lab test. research shows people who take h-i-v treatment every day and get to and stay undetectable can no longer transmit h-i-v through sex.
serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your doctor about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b, do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your doctor. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. if you're living with hiv, keep loving who you are. and ask your doctor if biktarvy is right for you. like pulsing, electric shocks, sharp, stabbing pains, or an intense burning sensation. what is this nightmare? it's how some people describe... shingles. a painful, blistering rash that could interrupt your life for weeks. forget social events and weekend getaways. if you've had chickenpox, the virus that causes shingles is already inside of you. if you're 50 years or older ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingles.
lemons. lemons, lemons, lemons. look how nice they are. the moment you become an expedia member, you can instantly start saving on your travels. so you can go and see all those, lovely, lemony, lemons. ♪ and never wonder if you got a good deal. because you did. ♪ vladimir putin, the man donald trump called a genius for invading ukraine, ordered the bombing of a crowded shopping mall in central ukraine this week, killing at least 20 people. no comment from donald trump on that bombing. he is busy lying about other things these days. the attack is the latest example of vladimir putin's use
of terror tactics that make russia the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world on a daily basis. ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy released this video, calling the attack one of the most defiant terrorist attacks in european history. president zelenskyy addressed a nato summit in madrid by video, saying the question is, who is next for russia? moldova? the baltic states? poland? the answer is all of them. one of the reasons vladimir putin launched this war was to prevent neighboring countries from joining nato. but putin's rank stupidity and unlimited cruelty has now produced the result he was trying to prevent, with president biden in attendance at the nato summit today, nato formally invited finland and sweden to join nato, to countries that had never expressed an interest in joining nato before vladimir putin invaded ukraine.
joining us now is michael mcfaul, who served as the u. s. ambassador to russia from 2012 to 2014. he is an msnbc international affairs analyst. and michael, this is a huge event for nato now to be right on the border of russia. >> lawrence, you summarized it brilliantly. allegedly, putin invaded ukraine to stop nato expansion. and he's had exactly the opposite effect, and really expanded the borders, not just two small nations, but this is the biggest expansion of nato in the last 20 years. and it expands the border between russia and nato, with finland and with sweden. and in addition, some really remarkable statements about how nato is going to reinforce and expand deployments closer to russia that came out today. so, i do give president biden a lot of credit, leading that charge, leading nato to unify
and expand. it might not have happened, by the way. there might have been a different reaction to what putin did. but first and foremost, it was putin that triggered this remarkable, historic day today, within nato. >> and what is driving nato and what is driving the neighboring countries toward nato? it may seem obvious. but when putin does a bombing like this, on a shopping mall, this is a war crime by any definition. this is just targeting civilians, killing people where he can find them. does that actually solidify nato every time putin commits one of these very grotesque war crimes? >> absolutely. and by the way, i really liked the way you phrased it. this is state sponsored terrorism. and i think the rest of the world, including the united states, should call it that, to
designate russia a state sponsor of terrorism. if cuba is on our list, lawrence, shouldn't russia be also on our list? but secondly, exactly -- putin, in doing things like and this, just as to everybody in the region, we want somebody to help us, to protect us against these barbaric actions. and very strikingly, today, president zelenskyy said he had again, he wants to one day see ukraine inside nato. and several weeks ago by now, he was talking about neutrality. no longer. he wants to have a much closer relationship with nato as a result of these terrorist attacks. >> is it fair to say that putin has gotten everything wrong from his own list of ambitions here. he has failed at everything. >> i would say, almost everything. so remember, he wanted to unify the ukrainians with russians. he thinks ukrainians are just russians with accents. he explained that to the world. that didn't happen. denazification? remember that world? he was going to wipe out the zelenskyy nazis and put in his
own puppet. that didn't work. demilitarization? that obviously hasn't worked. he hasn't seized kyiv. that was a major objective he didn't do. and now he's just left the fighting in donbas. a far cry from what started in february 24th. >> ambassador michael mcfaul, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> sure. >> thank you, we will be right back. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today.
what if i sleep hot? ...or cold? no problem. the sleep number 360 smart bed is temperature balancing, visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. so you both stay comfortable and can help you get almost 30 minutes more restful sleep per night. the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. plus, free home delivery when you add a base. ends monday.
and all of those millions are on the nation's most reliable 5g network, with the carrier rated #1 in customer satisfaction. that's a whole lot of happy campers out there. and it's never too late to join them. get unlimited data with 5g included for just $30 a line per month when you get 4 lines. >> that is tonight's last, switch to xfinity mobile today. where the 11th hour stephanie ruhle starts right now. where the 11th hour stephani >> tonight, the new subpoena sent from the january 6th committee to pat cipollone, just a day after the bombshell testimony from cassidy hutchinson. and the pleas from the panel to get him to talk. plus, what we are learning tonight about the very real security threats. just how much trump knew and what happens next. then, more states take action on abortion, after the supreme court decision, with democrats
pushing the president to do something more, as the 11th hour gets underway on this wednesday night. good evening, i'm alicia menendez, in for stephanie ruhle. after days a very public invitations to come talk, the january 6th committee tonight has issued a formal subpoena for pat cipellone. the move comes just one day after that devastating testimony from cassidy hutchinson, who -- at the former trump white house counsel's actions ahead of him and during the insurrection. in a statement, the committee writes its investigation has, quote, revealed evidence that mr. cipollone repeatedly raised legal and other concerns about president trump's activities on january 6th and in the days that preceded it. the panel notes cipollone did sit for an informal interview on april 13th. but goes on to say that, unfortunately, h