conditions on the battlefield somehow, try and convince them that this additional money could help change the trajectory of the war because it is true that ukraine remains bogged down in this counteroffensive that has not necessarily changed the battle lines so far. and so he will be at the white house meeting with president biden. he will also be on capitol hill. he'll address a meeting of all senators in person. and he will also meet with the republican house speaker mike johnson. but you're already hearing some republican pushback to this visit. the conservative senator j.d. vance from ohio said that zelenskyy will come to washington and demand that congress care more about his border than our own. and it is this issue of the border that does seem to be stalling these talks. because remember, republicans are trying to use the ukraine aid as leverage to secure tighter restrictions on migration into the united states. president biden has said that he is open to significant compromises when it comes to the border, and white house officials have told us that includes potential changes to the asylum rules. but he is under pressure from a lot of different sides here. certainly from republicans and even some democrats who want him to do more to curb these migration flows. but on the other side he also has progressives, immigration advocates who worry that he will essentially concede too much and revert back to some of the highly restrictive policies from the trump administration. and president biden has so far called the republican proposals in these talks extreme. now, we did hear from the democratic senator chris murphy, who is a leader in these talks that the white house will become more engaged in them over the coming week. but certainly it is true that time is running short. the white house says ukraine aid will run out essentially by the end of the year and congress really only has a little bit less than a week before it heads out on its holiday recess, jim. >> the clock is ticking. kevin liptak, thank you very much. we appreciate it. let's bring in democratic congressman seth moulton of massachusetts. congressman, what do you think? is this going to get done? >> well, i sure hope it does because it's essential to our national security. we talk a lot about how much ukraine needs this aid. we talk a lot about how israel needs this aid. but at the end of the day it's essential to our national security that we show our allies and our adversaries all around the globe that we are going to stand up for american values, we are going to stand up for our allies. and if xi jinping is watching how we handle vladimir putin and his criminal invasion of ukraine as xi jinping contemplates taking on taiwan and perhaps starting world war 3 in the pacific, he needs to get a strong message from america that we're not going to let adversaries like that get away with it. >> and i'm sure you saw this and kevin liptak was just mentioning this a few moments ago, ohio republican senator j.d. vance said earlier today that ukraine is going to have to cede some territory to the russians to end this war. let's listen to that. >> what's in america's best interest is to accept ukraine is going to have to cede some territory to the russians, and we need to bring this war to a close. when i think about the great human tragedy here, hundreds of thousands of eastern europeans, innocent, have been killed in this conflict, the thing that's in our interest and in theirs is to stop the killing. >> congressman, what's your response to that? >> look, we all want to see the killing stop. of course we would prefer to this war comes to an end. and we want it to come to an end sooner than later. but it's just not as simple as j.d. vance seems to think. we have to send a message to vladimir putin that he does not win. that he will not win. that starting a criminal invasion of a sovereign nation will not reward you. because otherwise other people like xi jinping that i just mentioned, they're going to start to do the same thing. so yes, we want the war to end but we've got to make sure it ends on ukraine's terms. >> and i mean i know you have been working on this issue for some time now. what would the end of u.s. aid mean to ukraine's ability to defend itself? we were talking to colonel eugene vindman in the previous hour and he said the ukrainians would fight on, they would continue to fight the russians, but they would be severely hampered. what do you think? >> well, let me be blunt. i think they would lose. if our aid ends i think that ukraine would lose. i think that they're holding on, they're fighting extraordinarily well with very limited resources. the bravery we see out of the ukrainian troops every single day is truly inspiring. but at the end of the tay they are dependent on u.s. aid. that's what's gotten them this far. remember, they've defeated every expectation by simply stopping the russian army. most every military analyst thought that russia would take kyiv in a matter of weeks. it's been a couple years. so they're doing well. but they need our aid. and that's what's at risk if the republicans don't get their act together. >> and if this all boils down to giving house republicans, senate republicans in some cases what they want on immigration or some of what they want on immigration, how far are democrats willing to go? how far should the white house be willing to go in we heard kevin liptak say a few moments ago that there are? democrats up on capitol hill who are a little nervous the white house, the president might give away too much. >> well, look, i'm for increased border security but i'm also for a pathway to citizenship. the basic deal around immigration is pretty simple. we need to strengthen our border. we also need to strengthen those pathways to citizenship for people who have earned it, people who deserve it, people like kids who came to america because their parents came over the border. and through no fault of their own are sitting in limbo right here in the united states. and at the end of the day because republicans, or many republicans won't give in on a pathway to citizenship even though it's supported by the vast majority of americans, we have to do an immigration deal that includes both things, the pathway to citizenship and all that that entails along with increased border security. what the republicans are trying to do is play politics with our national security by just getting their half of the border security deal, their half of the immigration deal and tying it to ukraine aid. so what we should do is separate these things, get ukraine what it needs for its national security and for ours and then do a separate immigration deal that solves the problem once and for all. >> and what about aid to the israelis? >> well, again, that should be part of our national security picture. so i don't want to see that tied up with our border, our immigration debate either. that's essential for our national security as well as israel's national security. this is the piece i keep emphasizing, jim, because folks need to realize that this isn't just about supporting our allies. it's about sending a message to our enemies all around the globe that we're going to stick together, that western democracies are going to stick together, so you can't get away with the kind of criminal activity perpetrated by vladimir putin. there are a lot of other bad people around the world who want to do the same thing. look to iran. look to china. so this is essential to our national security. now, having a strong border is important to our national security as well. but by the way, so is having a pathway to citizenship because i want people to come here, i just want them to come here legally. so let's do that immigration deal that's really not that complicated and at the same time make sure we're getting our allies what they need to win. >> it sounds like it's awfully complicated, bundling all of these issues together and trying to pass some large bill that ties all of these matters together. is that even feasible to get that done by the end of the week? >> well, again, my argument is that we shouldn't be putting them all together. but at the end of the day if that's what house and senate leaders want to do yes, we can do it. we're the most powerful nation on earth, jim. we can walk and chew gum at the same time. we should be able to do this deal. we've just got to get past the politics. but for the last several months republicans have been playing politics with our national security. conditioning ukraine aid on the border. the senator from alabama, who held up hundreds of military promotions, essentially kneecapping us by not promoting people and getting their families where they need to go with those promotions. i mean, that's unbelievably harmful to our national security, and it's all due to one republican senator from alabama who's never served in the military himself, doesn't know anything about serving the country. so i said a few months ago that the republican party right now is a threat to our national security, and sadly that's really proving true. >> and congressman, i know you have combat experience and you served during the war on terrorism, and right now israel sees itself in the middle of a similar battle. but you've heard the secretary of state tony blinken say that israel has not gone far enough to protect innocent civilians in gaza. what lessons are you drawing from what you've seen so far as this battle between israel and hamas is unfolding? >> well, jim, my concern is that israel is making some of the same mistakes that we made in the early days of iraq and afghanistan of fundamentally not recognizing how critical the civilian population is to actually winning the military conflict against a terrorist organization. this isn't just a force on force battle like ukraine versus russia. this is about winning over a civilian population that's either going to go with you or go with the terrorists. there is a poll in the gaza strip just before october 7th that showed that 62% of palestinians did not like hamas. it's not a surprise. they don't want to live under a terrorist regime. but i'd be concerned about what that poll would show today because if israel kills too many innocent civilians it will literally push them into the arms of the opposition, into the arms of the terrorists. and that's not in anybody's interest. we need to support israel in its goal of eliminating hamas. but if their killing of civilians ultimately provides more recruits for hamas, you're going to get into this real problem where they might be creating more terrorists than they kill. and israel simply can't win the war if that's the case. so as this humanitarian tragedy unfolds let's be clear that israel has a moral obligation to protect innocent palestinian life. but has a military obligation as well if it wants to win this conflict in the end. >> all right. congressman seth moulton, thank you very much for your time this evening. we appreciate it. >> jim, thank you. >> all right. coming up, doubling down on being dictator for a day and vowing political retribution. will the republican party stand up to trump's vengeful rhetoric? and later, pressure is growing on top university leaders across the country after two top penn officials resign following backlash to testimony on antisemitism. the ceo of the anti-defamation league, jonathan greenblatt, he will join me live to talk about it in just a short while from now. stay with us. donald trump is doubling down on his vow to be an american dictator, which he maintains would only be for one day. >> baker today in the "new york times," he said that i want to be a dictator. i didn't say that. i said i want to be a dictator for one day. but "the new york times" said -- and you know why i wanted to be a dictator? because i want a wall. right? i want a wall. and i want to drill, drill, drill! >> those comments coming during an 80-minute airing of grievances last night at a soiree filled with trump loyalists and maga diehards. the former president who is waging what he has called a righteous crusade touted the criminal indictments against him and took aim at his likely democratic rival for the white house, accusing president biden with no evidence of weaponizing the justice department for political purposes and suggesting that he would use a second presidential term, a second trump term to go after biden. >> these are biden indictments against their -- this is just against a political opponent. but they've opened up a pandora's box and i only can say to joe is be very careful what you wish for because what you've done is a terrible thing. >> let's discuss more now with cnn's senior political commentator scott jennings, democratic strategist chuck rocah and former republican congressman joe walsh of illinois. joe, let me start with you. what do you make of all this dictator talk? >> jim, two thoughts. the first thing that comes to mind is i don't think any of it's funny and i don't think we should dismiss it. mitt romney and so many other republicans out there, what, seven, eight years after trump came on the scene and they're still just trying to dismiss what this guy has said. he said, jim, that if he's re-elected he'll shut down media outlets he doesn't like and he'll imprison his political opponents. he has said stuff like that. don't dismiss it. don't laugh it. it needs to be condemned by republicans. the second thing i'd say, jim, is there's a sizable chunk of the republican party base that want this. they want a strongman in office. which is why trump's way ahead in the polls. >> yeah, scott, we're seeing varying reactions in the gop to what trump has been saying. this is what mitt romney had to say. let's listen to that. >> donald trump is kind of a human gumball machine. which is a thought or a notion comes in and it comes out of his mouth. i don't attach an enormous amount of impact to the particular words that come out and try to evaluate each one of them. i do think you can look at his record as president and particularly in the last months of his presidency and say this is a dangerous approach, it's an authoritarian approach. that gives me far more concern than him playing to the crowd as he did. >> i mean, scott, i think this gumball has a sour taste to it. what do you think? it seems to me that you have to take trump for what he's saying here. >> to me the issues that are most noteworthy are the promises for retribution. i think the dictator talk is -- you know, he's trying to get everybody worked up about that and make a point, whatever. to me, though, the retribution is the key issue. the idea that you would use the federal government to go after people. that's obviously how trump feels that joe biden has played it. but looking ahead, trying to win an election, thinking about what it would look like if you did win an election, the concept that the federal government as a promise would be weaponized for the purpose of vengeance and retri retribution, that really does need to stop. and that cannot be part of his campaign. i would also say that, you know, republicans feel the way they feel about this but i just think trying to -- if you're trying to win the race, you know, for donald trump eventually that kind of talk right there is going to be an anvil on the republican party's head because people do not want that promise hanging out there that our government is essentially a bludgeoning tool against the people that we hate. >> yeah, i mean, chuck, in this country i guess if trump pulls this off he would be the first candidate where somebody has said okay, yeah, i'll vote for the guy who wants to be a dictator, i'll vote for the dictator. but let me show you this polling, chuck, from the "wall street journal." trump beating president biden by four points in a hypothetical rematch next year. i mean, this extreme rhetoric, and we've been talking about this for how many years now, eight years now? it is not affecting him to a large degree. >> i think people don't understand that the electorate has changed. you know, it's changed a lot. and what he knows, he can read the polls like we can read the polls. he's doing really well. but he's guaranteed -- he is really, really relying on bringing new people that normally don't participate. the folks that vote in every election, especially moderate women in the suburbs of philadelphia or milwaukee, they're done with donald trump. they've shown that in voting for democrats over and over again, at least at the top of the ticket. and he knows he's lost some of that support. so the way as a political strategist to get new people to show up is throw them a dictator for a day thing. give them grievance politics while joe biden's trying to say this is how many jobs we've created, here's what my plan is, we need to make sure we protect democracy. but he knows and as well as his consultants know this, they've got to go find new people that normally don't participate in the election and the way you do that is with some of the crazy talk i think you've been hearing. >> and joe, one thing we saw this weekend, and the president did this out at some fund-raisers out in california. it was behind closed doors, so the remarks are not on camera. but he was going after trump for engaging in this dictator rhetoric. is that more of what you think we need to see from the president on this? >> i think he has to lead on this, jim. i think this is what he did, joe biden, in 2022 when he talked about defending democracy, when he said democracy was on the ballot. and it squelched the so-called red wave in '22. yes, i think joe biden needs to wrap himself in 2024 around democracy, and tell the american people and challenge the american people that this is an election about democracy again. democracy against authoritarianism. because i do not believe this is a joke or dismissive talk or crazy talk by trump. i think he believes this. and biden's got to call it out. >> and scott, i mean, the former house speaker kevin mccarthy, he was asked about trump and what he's been up to and what he's saying. let's listen to that. >> will donald trump be the nominee? >> yes. in the republican party, yes. >> can he count on your support? >> yes. >> that's an endorsement? >> i will support the president -- i will support president trump. >> would you be willing to serve in a trump cabinet? >> in the right position -- look, if i'm the best person for the job -- this is what i tell president trump too. what president trump needs to do in this campaign, it needs to be about rebuilding, restoring, renewing america. it can't be about revenge. >> he's talking about retri retribution, day in, day out. >> he needs to stop that. >> i mean, scott, what's your response to what the former speaker had to say there? and i guess did you want to weigh in at all on -- it was kevin mccarthy who resuscitated donald trump's career after january 6th. then mccarthy becomes the speaker of the house. and when his job was on the line in the last several weeks, donald trump did not really do a whole heck of a lot to help keep kevin mccarthy in that job. donald trump could have gone out there and said do not vote against kevin mccarthy, keep him in there as speaker. and mccarthy is not the speaker of the house and yet he's still going to support donald trump. >> yeah. i'm not sure whether donald trump could have saved him or not. the people that voted against kevin mccarthy were pretty dug in and i'm not certain they were going to be persuaded by anybody. but you heard mccarthy sort of echo what i said earlier, which is the talk about retribution is going to cost him support in the election and that's not the way forward. trump can make the election about things that will be winning issues. he could make it about the economy,