> look, the role of the congress and the role of the vice president on tha"> > look, the role of the congress and the role of the vice president on tha" property="og:description"> > look, the role of the congress and the role of the vice president on tha">
"the reidout" with joy reid starts now. tonight on "the reidout" -- >> look, the role of the congress and the role of the vice president on that day is to open and count electoral votes, no more, no less. i will always believe by god's grace i did my duty that day. >> but there was more to it than that. there's new reporting that mike pence seriously considered shirking that solemn duty and skipping the january 6th electoral vote certification. also tonight, russia extends the detention of american journalist evan girsh kovich and is seeking to prosecutor another journalist. plus, honoring the life of former first lady rosalynn carter, a tribute service is attended by all the living first ladies. and three presidents including her beloved husband of 77 years. former president jimmy carter. >> but we begin tonight with new reporting about january 6th that may help explain a lingering mystery in the lead-up to that day. just one day before then vice president mike pence was to preside over the electoral college vote count, the president protemper of the senate, republican chuck grassley, set off quite the controversy when he indicated that he might in fact preside over the count after being asked by reporters how he was going to vote on the election certification. quote, well, first of all, i will be -- if the vice president isn't there, and we don't expect him to be there, i will be presiding over the senate. grassley's office was quick to claim that the senator's comment was being mischaracterized, thattee only meant that he would preside over the debate in the senate if pence had to step -- if mike pence had to step out, not preside over the certification in the joint session. given the mounting pressure pence was facing from trump and the rest of the maga world to buck the constitution in order to keep his boss in office, it would not be out of the realm of possibility for pence to step aside that day. but he ultimately presiding on january 6th, even as donald trump was simultaneously inciting the violent maga mob that was fighting to get into the capitol, the same mob that was chanting this about trump's vice president. [ chanting bring out pence ] [ chanting hang mike pence ] >> but it turns out pence did have second thoughts about showing up that day. aby news is reporting new details of what pence told jack smith's team earlier this year. including about one of pence's notes they obtained showing on christmas eve, he was ready to step aside from his ceremonial role. quote, not feeling like i should attend electoral count. too many questions, too many doubts, too hurtful to my friend. therefore, i'm not going to participate in certification of election. apparently, it was only when his son, who is a marine, told him across the dinner table that they both took the same oath to support and defend the constitution, that pence decided he would preside, even under the mounting pressure from trump, according to sources familiar. abc news added sources said that investigators questioning became so granular at times that they pressed pence over the placement of a comma in his book, when recounting a phone call with trump on christmas day, 2020. pence wrote in his book that he told trump, you know comma i don't think i have the authority to change the outcome of the election on january 6th, but pence allegedly told smith's investigators that the comma should have never been placed there, according to sources, pence told smith's investigators that he actually meant to write in his book that he admonished strump, saying you know i don't have the authority to change the outcome. suggesting trump was well aware of the limitations of pence's authority days before january 6th. the line smith includes in his indictment. the sources also said pence told investigators in the days leading up to january 6th that he was sure that he told trump he still hadn't seen evidence of significant election fraud. but trump was unmoved, having surrounded himself with, quote, crank attorneys espousing un-american legal theories. joining me now is barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney, professor at the university of michigan school of law, and msnbc legal analyst. and matthew dowd, political strategist and msnbc senior political analyst. thank you for being here. barb, the question of a comma, a comma, this is why i love language, because there's a big difference between, you know, i don't have this authority. and you know i don't have this authority. so what do you make of these sort of details which are emerging from what pence has told jack smith's team? >> yeah, it's like my dearest angelica, is there a comma or not? it changes everything about the meaning. here, is it a throw away line of just, you know, i don't have authority. or you know i don't have authority. i think that matters. because it is an acknowledgment between pence and trump that pence never had the authority to do what donald trump claimed that he did. so i think it's a really important point. and it's refreshing, i think, that mike pence is providing helpful, sounds like truthful information that can be helpful to the prosecution in this case. i imagine when this trial ultimately happens, joy, we're going to hear details we have never heard before. and they're going to be things like this, things about private conversations that were had between donald trump and others, that will be bone chilling. >> yeah, and pence will be a star witness. let me play for you, matthew, mike pence. he gets a lot of credit for saying things like this and even saying it to maga supporters. take a listen. >> i swore an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states of america. and it ended with a prayer. so help me god. my son, who is a captain in the united states marine corps reminded me one time that it's the exact same oath he took. there's almost no idea more un-american than the notion that any one person could pick the american president. people deserve to know that on that day, the former president asked me to choose him over my oath to the constitution. i chose the constitution, and i always will. >> except, matthew, that we now know from pence's own testimony to jack smith that he considered staying home and letting chuck grassley presumably do what he would not. your thoughts. >> i find so much of this fascinating. first, you know, i don't think mike pence -- i'm glad he's telling the truth, but all of this is an indictment on both donald trump and what he was doing and mike pence and what he was not doing. not only was he not saying anything publicly, which we all know at the time, but also his deliberation sounded like he was ready to do what donald trump wanted and then there's a reported meeting between him and his son where his son says, what are you talking about, dad? i took an oath, you took an oath. you better stick up for the constitution. then there's this other, which i find very weird line that mike pence says, but something like but he's my friend. but we're friends. some line where he says, friends, that to me sounds not like somebody that's in the middle of a constitutional crisis, but somebody that's in fourth grade wondering whether or not he should give valentines to the whole class. i don't know, should i give valentines to suzy and bill? not like, oh, there's a major constitutional crisis. i'm worried about my friend, donald trump, in this. so to me, i think barb's right. we're going to learn a lot more. every time we go through these things we think we know everything, and we learn more in this. i think mike pence's testimony is incredibly an indictment of donald trump but it's also an indictment of mike pence. >> it is a statement about the weakness of the republican party writ large, that they hem and haw. he had to go to a former vice president to ask, can i really do this? no. this is not considered one of the genius former vice presidents. not a smarty. go ahead. >> if dan quayle is giving you fiber in your backbone, you have a problem. >> can't even spell potato. because the question i guess for you, barb, is whether mike pence's reluctance to follow the constitution, even though he ultimately did, hireluctance, it's just a ceremonial job, his reluctance to do that and not turn it over to chuck grassley, does that make him a better witness or a worse witness? and hold that thought while you think about that. i want to play for you one of the things i thought was the most compelling from the january 6th hearings. and it was the story of what happened when mike pence actually finally did make the decision ultimately that he would do his job, his ceremonial job. here is greg jacob, this was pence's attorney, describing that pence was afraid to get into a car with secret service agents he didn't know. >> i understood that the vice president had refused to get into the car. the head of his secret service you, we're not going to drive out of the building without your permission. the vice president said something to the effect of, tim, i know you. i trust you. but you're not the one behind the wheel. and the vice president did not want to take any chance that the world would see the vice president of the united states fleeing the united states capitol. >> barb, does his hemming and hawing but ultimately doing what he was required by the constitution do make him a better witness or make him impeachable by the defense? >> i think it makes him a less likable witness for the jury, but as the government will often say with cooperators or associates of defendants, you don't have to like the witness to believe him. so i think, you know, people have flaws. cases have flaws. and i think what matters most is when someone is truthful. so i think admitting these flaws makes him believable. and is just as incriminating as it would be otherwise. >> i want to ask you both about mark meadows but i want to start with you, barb. mark meadows ain't getting a plea deal. moving to the other january 6th case in fulton county. fani willis is like no, no plea deal for you, no plea deal for giuliani, clearly no plea deal for trump. what do you make of that? because mark meadows, we had lawyers of the show who said if there was one person they would want to spill all the beans, it would be meadows. what do you make of the fact he ain't getting one, at least not from fani willis? >> it's really interesting, especially in light of the way he's been treated by federal prosecutors. he's not really included in that indictment among the unindicted coconspirators. i think his description was very significant in its absence which caused me to believe at the time that he was cooperating in the federal case. it's a very odd posture to cooperate in one forum and not the other, because you're really sort of working across purposes for yourself. but i don't know, it is a typical prosecutor's strategy to use the lower level offenders to go after the higher level offenders. being the chief of staff to the president is a pretty high level offender. >> i want to put up the cameneder for next year, which is going to be a dumpster fire for us all. don't make any plans. there it is. matthew, we have got everything all mixed together. donald trump is facing civil cases for alleged sexual assault, you have the iowa caucuses, then that's mixed in with his federal cases, super tuesday, it's all mixed in. the political calendar and his legal calendar. this is coming at a time where everyone involved in these cases against trump are facing just extraordinary threats. the threat environment is high. fani willis has faced them, the poor clerk in this new york fraud case has faced just abominable, unending threats, while the gag orders are lifted. how bad is it going to get next year in your view? i think it's going to be rough, but matthew, how bad do you think it's going to get? >> you mean for you, me, and barbara? >> just for us. make it about us. no, for the country. it's hard for me to imagine having all of these things happening at once. how bad do you think it will get for the country? >> awful. i don't think we have ever seen this kind of convergence between a former president running for office again in the midst of multiple trials held simultaneously while he wins primaries and caucuses. the people running against him, nikki haley and whatever, i think what's going to end up happening is he's going to have momentum. he'll win iowa, win new hampshire, win south carolina, and he'll basically all but be the nominee, and basically be there, and then he's going to get convicted before he goes to the rnc convention in july. so he'll be the nominee, but be a convicted nominee in the midst of this, and then we'll be headed to a general election with the nominee of a major political party convicted at least in one court if not in two different courts in this time. a convicted felon running for president under the republican party. we have never in my life have ever seen a calendar that will unfold in that manner. but it also is, it's going to be so weird while this is going on, republican voters voting for him to be the nominee of the party as he's convicted. >> it is -- but it's not -- it's not as if it hasn't ever happened, right? israel has a current sitting prime minister who is indicted along with his wife for crimes, and still got the job. and his behavior is sort of speaks to the desperation of when you are in a corner. and look, fear for the future, but scaring is caring. barbara mcquade, matthew dowd, thank you both very much. up next on "the reidout," a temporary truce in gaza extends into day five as more hostages are released and the white house pushes to extend it even longer. "the reidout" continues after this. disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. arexvy does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients. those with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects are injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint pain. i chose arexvy. rsv? make it arexvy. another breakthrough day in the fragile and fluid hostages for prisoners exchange between israel and hamas. ten israeli hostages and two thai hostages returned to israeli territory today. here are some of them in photos that were released today. in exchange for this latest group, 30 palestinian detainees were returned home. we have reached day five of the extended pause between israel and hamas. cia director william burns arrived in qatar tod to meet with israel's spy chief and qatar's prime minister. per "the washington post," the quote, secret meetings are aimed at brokering an expansive deal between israel and hamas. the humanitarian situation remains catastrophic in gaza. where health officials say the death toll has surpassed 14,500. after weeks of israeli attacks. israel has vowed to resume its assault on hamas once the hostage releases end. joining me now is omer, professor of holocaust and genocide studies at brown university. professor, i was very excited when my producers told me, i asked if they could see if you would come on the show, and they said you would. so thank you for being here. i read your very brilliant piece, which i have printed out here and have marked up extensively so no one can borrow it. i want to go through a few of the things you said and i'm going to post it on threads. so people can read it. you said that when october 7 happened, as somebody who is from israel yourself, who fought in the 1973 war, you're a veteran of the israeli military. you were shocked but you were not surprised. why? >> well, i was shocked, first of all, thank you for having me on your show. it's really a pleasure. i was shocked because it was so atrocious. the killings were so terrible and the extent of it was so extraordinary. but i was not surprised because as i write there, if you keep people under siege for 16 years without any hope, without proper sanitation, without proper education, with very heavy unemployment, a place where they cannot leave, it becomes a pressure cooker. and people will want to break out. and people will be brutalized by that situation. and in a sense, hamas, which is a terrorist organization, was making use of that. and immobilizing that rage, that frustration, and so at some point, something had to break, and so i was not surprised that it happened although it was shocking to see. >> you have also disputed some of the sort of characterizations of what's happened. this has been called a pogrom. it is the worst attack on israel since, you know, i think in its existence in terms of the number of dead since 1948. it's obviously being described as their 9/11. but you have said some of the characterizations are not accurate. explain what you mean. >> well, some people have called it a pogrom. and a pogrom is something that happens, started happening really in the late 19th century, these were attacks by mobs on jewish communities. and jews in southern russia and ukraine were living there as minorities, and the mobs were part of the majority population. sometimes assisted by the authorities. and so the police, the army was on the side of the mobs. and the whole idea of zionism was to create a jewish state, a jewish majority state where the police would be jewish, the army would be jewish, and therefore, pogroms wouldn't happen. what happened on october 7th was a terrorist attack. calling it a pogrom and sort of contextualizing it that way, what it means is this was an anti-semitic attack. therefore, what do you do with anti-semites if they attack you? then you have to attack them back, there's no talking with them. that's part of how the israeli government wants to frame this whole thing, that is to present it as something that these people just want to destroy us. we can't talk with them. we have to either remove them or put them behind a fence. and so i think to call it a pogrom is a little like calling 9/11 a pogrom. it was a terrorist attack, not a pogrom. >> what do you make of the fact they are talking to them now? i mean, you know, the israeli press, they have been clear that benjamin netanyahu has seen hamas as useful in some ways and that the worse they are, the worse they behave, the more he can point to them and say see, that's why they'll never be a palestinian state. he's again saying those kinds of things. there won't be a palestinian state under his watch, that he can manage the american public opinion, et cetera. he's also made it very clear that they want to continue this war and they would go back to bombing to eradicate hamas. you have cast doubt on whether that can happen. why? whether hamas can be eradicated. >> well, look, i mean, i think hamas is both a terrorist organization, a social movement, and the political and military hedge amaund in gaza. it's a belief. i do think it could be removed from gaza. i don't think what propels it, what it feeds on can be easily removed. in order to remove hamas, in order to solve the situation, what you need is to change the political paradigm. what you need to say is that the state of israel after the october 7th attack has understood it can no longer manage the conflict, which is exactly what netanyahu has been saying for 20 years. we will manage the conflict, and the conflict is not manageable. the conflict has to be solved. that was shown on october 7th. in a horrific way, but that was shown. to change the paradigm, i think hamas is not a good partner for negotiations. it would be very good to see hamas gone. but the israeli government is also not a good partner for negotiations because netanyahu and the people to his right who are very extreme do not want any settlement. what they want is really if they could, to remove the population of gaza from gaza, to make them into refugees elsewhere, mayb