Transcript: The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, 2/9/22

Guests: Lance Dodes, Eric Swalwell

SHARE THIS —

Summary

Interview with Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA). "The New York Times" is reporting that an earlier draft of the statement called the January 6th committee a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in nonviolent and legal political discourse. The final wording that the Republican National Committee settled on was that the attack on the Capitol on January 6th was quote, "legitimate political discourse". Sending over 140,000 Russian troops to the Ukraine border now had already achieved most of what Vladimir Putin wanted -- attention.

Transcript

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Ali.

We have Dr. Lance Dodes joining us again tonight. He first joined us early in the Trump administration. He was one of the psychiatrists who coauthored the book, "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump". He considered it his duty to warn, as he put, it about the mental health of Donald Trump.

He is going to join us tonight on the question of cult. We heard Hakeem Jeffries yesterday say it really should be called the Republican national cult. Speaker Pelosi today used that word called referring to a Republican counterpart in the House.

We are going to ask Dr. Dodes what he thinks. What are we looking at, is this cold behavior, what is this? This has moved beyond the political question. We now have to go psychiatric.

ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST: I am intrigued to listen to that, because you`re right, it takes two parts for a cult. It`s a leader and it`s the followers. We need to figure this one out before the next election.

O`DONNELL: And we`re going to do that in the next hour. To the extent that we can.

VELSHI: All right. I enjoy watching it, Lawrence. Thank you.

O`DONNELL: Thank you, Ali. Thank you.

Well, the breaking news tonight comes for "The New York Times", the reporting that included in the 15 boxes of presidential records that Donald Trump illegally removed from the White House and brought to Florida is some classified material. "The Times" reports that the National Archives and Records Administration discovered what it believed was classified information in documents Donald J. Trump had taken with him from the White House, as he left office, according to a person briefed on the matter.

The discovery, which occurred after Mr. Trump returned 15 boxes of documents to the government last month, prompted the National Archives to reach out to the Justice Department for guidance, the person said. The department told the National Archives to have its inspector general examine the matter, the person said. It is unclear what the inspector general has done since then, in particular, whether the inspector general has referred the matter to the Justice Department.

And inspector general is required to alert the justice department to the discovery of any classified materials that were found outside of authorized government channels.

And joining us now on this breaking news is Reid Epstein, national politics reporter for "The New York Times". He is one of the reporters working on the story tonight.

Reed, what can you tell us about the Archives has discovered?

REID EPSTEIN, "THE NEW YORK TIMES" (via telephone): Well, Lawrence, we don`t know the extent of what`s classified materials are in the boxes. We know that the Archives, part of what they do is they go through presidential records. So, they have a lot of archivists who are trained to understand what is classified and what`s not. One of the archivists who opened the boxes as they return from Mar-a-Lago back to the National Archives in -- around Washington, some of the items were classified and went up to the chain of command of the National Archives, which as we reported on our stories for the Justice Department which tasked their inspector general to get involved.

O`DONNELL: The -- in the Clinton administration, national security adviser Sandy Berger was accused of having removed classified material from the Archives. He ended up facing criminal prosecution with a probation sentence. This is a scenario that could involve criminal violations.

EPSTEIN: Well, we don`t know them, sort of, if that`s in the ball parquet. Certainly, these items were not removed from the National Archives, it`s not entirely perilous situation. They removed from the White House and taken from to Florida, which they should not have been. The National Archives spent the better part of the year negotiating to try to get some of these items returned. Presidential records returned from Mar-a-Lago back to the National Archives so they can process them as they`re supposed to.

O`DONNELL: And as we go forward, what are you thinking you`re going to be able to find out beyond this, at this point? How does your reporting tonight, if you know, jive with the reporting earlier in the day, in "The Washington Post", which seemed to indicate that the National Archives had made some sort of criminal referral to the Justice Department?

[22:05:09]

EPSTEIN: Well, we don`t know that. Our reporting did not indicate a criminal referral. What our understanding is the way this was process in the archives is pretty standard operating procedure. It`s classified material that they come across that should be where it is. The Justice Department is notified.

It`s not necessarily a criminal notification. But that is what happened in this instance, was the officials from the archives notified the Justice Department, which tasked the National Archives to process it through their own inspector general.

O`DONNELL: Does the archives have an assessment about whether they have obtained everything that was removed to Florida that they have any way of knowing that something is still held in Florida?

EPSTEIN: I don`t know if they have made that assessment, and they had not indicated either in a public way or in a way our reporting has covered, the answer to that question. I guess I will tell you, I don`t know.

O`DONNELL: Reid Epstein, thank you very much for joining us tonight with this breaking news report that you`ve contributed to "The New York Times". We really appreciate your time.

EPSTEIN: Thank you, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: Thank you.

And joining us now is Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell of California. He served as an impeachment manager of the second impeachment of Donald Trump.

Congressman Swalwell, I just want to get your reaction to this new breaking news tonight from "The New York Times".

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): Lawrence, I guess you would be more surprised if you learned at the end of this that Donald Trump had not taken classified information from the White House down to Mar-a-Lago. When you look at some of the other materials, unclassified, like the embarrassing sharpie poster board, of course, he was doing it to protect his own self interest, to protect history from judging him, for the clownish later that he was. But also, attempting to destroy, even as we`ve learned from his former aides, eat evidence that was against him.

Now, the question becomes, first -- comparison, of course, is how the department treats this. Donald Trump has, allegedly, has done what he accused Hillary Clinton of accidentally doing. So, he maliciously, it looks like, did what he projected on Hillary Clinton, was accidentally doing.

So, is the Department of Justice up for investigating this and holding Donald Trump accountable and making sure no future president treats official documents, classified information as it relates to sources and how we protect our troops through our own personal property, to protect them, will they hold him to account? That is really going to be the question going forward.

O`DONNELL: Well, you know, the inspector general`s report on Hillary Clinton`s use of her private emails, some State Department general, did find that it was an incorrect use above email that she should absolutely have use the State Department email, using a private email server was wrong and was a violation of Federal Records Act, the kind of violation that is disciplined in the workplace, simply by telling the person, stop doing that.

The big decision that inspector general made was that Hillary Clinton believed, or said that she believed, and told the FBI that she believed, that those emails were actually being preserved by others. That they were entering the State Department system because a lot of her emails were being sent to people in the State Department. And on their emails, it would be safe.

So, she was never accused of removing a record, which the inspector general found a very important. The inspector general said the act of removing a record is a different case. Those are the kinds of cases that have been prosecuted.

SWALWELL: That`s right. So, there was not a malicious intent there by Secretary Clinton.

Here, you have priors from Donald Trump. There is a pattern of mishandling of classified information. You have meeting in the Oval Office with Foreign Minister Lavrov on the Russian side, where he leaked to them, which had not gone through the proper channels of declassified information, information that was sensitive operation.

You have the meeting with Putin in Helsinki where he kicked out the interpreters and took the notes away from the interpreters and did not properly keep them. Of course, we`re learning every day from the January 6 commission when he is done to destroy evidence.

In the criminal sense, destruction of evidence is done only for one reason.

[22:10:03]

It is because you have a consciousness appeal. It can`t just be on the January 6 commission to eliminate this with the American people. The Department of Justice has to make sure that there is accountability for this going forward.

O`DONNELL: I want to take a look at "The Washington Post" coverage of what`s might be, appears to be, the same story that "The New York Times" covering tonight. Washington Post coverage came up earlier in the day. It kills slightly more in the direction of a possible criminal prosecution in their investigation, at, least in the reporting.

"The Washington Post" says National Archives and Records Administration has asked Donald justice department to examine Donald Trump`s handling of White House records, sparking discussions among federal law enforcement officials about whether they should investigate the former president for a possible crime, according to two people familiar with the matter. The referral from the National Archives came amid recent revelations that officials recovered 15 boxes of materials from the former president`s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, that were not handed back to the government as they should have been, and that Trump had turned over other White House records that had been torn up. Archive officials suspected Trump had possibly violated laws concerning the handling of government documents, including those that might be considered classified, and reached out to the Justice Department, the people familiar with the matter said.

It seems, in my reading of that, Congressman Swalwell, that we have overlapping reporting tonight. Both of "The Washington Post" working on the story, "The New York Times" working on this, that`s an indicator that we`re going to know even more about this tomorrow.

SWALWELL: Yeah. The Department of Justice, last time I was there, they received copies every morning of both those publications. So, if they didn`t know before, if they didn`t know the National Archives referring, and they know now. They have a duty to investigate this as a potential criminal matter.

And, Lawrence, when does this just so fitting if the but her emails guy who, you know, really ran on that in 2016, was someone who took home classified information that, perhaps, you know, would`ve been an embarrassing or incriminating against him? That was ultimately the way he was held criminally liable? That seems like a fitting ending to this five- year saga that we`ve all been mired in.

O`DONNELL: The news from the January 6 committee today is the subpoena of economist Peter Navarro, who prior to any of his involvement in the Trump escapades was already guilty of being one of the worst economists in the country, as regarded by his colleagues. But he has written a book about what`s was his plan, talked about his plan, gave it a name about how to overturn this election.

He has no conceivable claim of privilege in the face of the subpoena, especially since he has already talked about what the committee wants to know about in television interviews.

SWALWELL: And that`s why they should bring him in. He really has no claim of privilege. He has to also answer the tough questions.

Again, Lawrence, what concerns me is that he put this out there in a book to monetize it because right now, he feels he has a green line, a permissive lane to do this. No one is being held accountable for what happened at the very top on January 6.

By the way, let me just say on economy, since we`re out there, Lawrence, this is the best Democrats have had in a year. We should have a chance held high, 7 million jobs created in one year, record unemployment. COVID is on the ropes. We are going to get a Supreme Court nominee put forward very soon. We have every reason to hold our heads high as we go into midterms. And, you know, don`t bet against us as we make this over the next ten months.

O`DONNELL: Congressman Swalwell, let`s stay on that point for a moment. In this flow of investigative news, on the January 6 committee is both generating and dealing with and trying to manage as it goes along, the rest of you in Congress are also dealing with a normal governing issues of our time, as you just mentioned. This is the point at which, if the Biden policies how are working, we should be able to see that. Is that the case that the Democrats are going to be trying to make in these midterm elections coming up?

SWALWELL: Yes. And tomorrow, as you alluded to in the top, President Obama`s going to be talking to us about messaging. If we are just a white delivery band that drops off everything you need and want on your porch and drives away, you look at it and, say hey, who delivered that? We are going to lose because the Republicans are shamelessly going to take credit for it, as they have on infrastructure, and the rescue plan.

If we can brand ourselves that Democrats deliver rescue plan, restaurant grants, getting the vaccine out there, getting kids back in schools, people back in churches, infrastructure dollars out there, African-American women on the Supreme Court, bringing down inflation, addressing crime.

[22:15:13]

We can win on that, Lawrence. Oh, by the way, the other side prefers violence to over votes, we can win on that. And that`s a challenge ahead.

O`DONNELL: Congressman Eric Swalwell, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Thank you.

And coming up, legitimate political discourse was not a first draft. It was a rewrite of something even crazier that Republicans were going to say. That`s next.

And, later, former Harvard psychiatrist professor Lance Dodes will join us to consider whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Hakeem Jeffries are right when they called the Republican Party a cult. Dr. Dodes is one of the psychiatrist that appeared on this program earlier in the Trump presidency because of what he said was his duty to warn the country about the mental health of Donald Trump.

(COMMRERCIAL BREAK)

[22:20:12]

O`DONNELL: It was a rewrite, they thought about it, carefully. And then, the final wording that the Republican national committee settled on, was that the attack on the Capitol on January 6th was quote, legitimate political discourse. They had at least one other draft of that statement, which they rejected because someone thought it went too far.

"The New York Times" is reporting that an earlier draft of the statement called the January 6th committee, quote, a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in nonviolent and legal political discourse.

So, they consciously cut the word nonviolent, and they consciously cut the word legal, given that over 700 of the Trump attackers on the Capitol have been charged with federal crimes. And then they settled, happily, unanimously, on the phrase legitimate political discourse.

It wasn`t a rushed document that not enough people read, they worked on it carefully, and came up with legitimate political discourse.

After Mitch McConnell yesterday refuted that freezing, and called the attack on the Capitol violent insurrection, a disgraced, twice impeached cult leader in Florida issued this written statement saying, Mitch McConnell does not speak for the Republican Party, and does not represent the views of the vast majority of its voters.

Joining us now, David Plouffe, former campaign manager and White House senior adviser to President Obama. Also with us, Jennifer Rubin, "Washington Post" opinion columnist and author of "Resistance: How Women Save Democracy from Donald Trump". Both are MSNBC political analysts.

And, David, you have been there. You have been there in political campaigning, at the presidential level trying to compose the exact wording of a public statement. You have been in the White House doing this kind of work, we now know that that was no quake rush writing job. They very carefully arrived at that level, legitimate political discourse.

DAVID PLOUFFE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Right, Lawrence, it is pretty remarkable. Even to hear even more of the vaccines play by play about this pandemic, as a former wordsmith, I will say that the length here of the version that they scrapped was not as quotable as legitimate political discourse. I think they made a big mistake because that is a sticky phrase, and it is a phrase that you can see Mitch McConnell in particular, who looks at the world through swing voters and swing Senate races, does not think it`s helpful to them in these upcoming elections.

So, yeah, I think that this is something that is going to be with us not just this week, next week, and I think every Republican candidate is going to be asked about it, many of them will defend it because they are worried about primaries. But I think particularly as the world shifts over the next 3 to 4 months, as the pandemic becomes endemic, because I think that people grasp the strength of the economy a little more willingly, I think this is going to be very harmful, Lawrence, because the Democrats so far have been on trial politically, they are in charge, the campaign has to be a choice, not a referendum, Barack Obama will talk about that tomorrow at the retreat.

And I think that you need to turn this Republican Party, at least most of the candidates, into too dangerous. And I think that it`s easier to do when the pandemic is in the rearview mirror, and people are feeling more positive. That can change very quickly. The right track, wrong track numbers can change quickly over the next two or three months.

O`DONNELL: Jennifer Rubin, we already see Capitol Hill reporters beginning to slip away from this question to Republicans of, what about legitimate political discourse? I suspect that six months from now, there will be more Democrats who never, ever, ever used the words defund the police, and had never abdicated anything like that, who would be getting challenging questions from reporters about defund the police. Then there will be Republicans, six months ago, six months from now, getting challenging questions about legitimate political discourse. Something that their party unanimously embraced.

JENNIFER RUBIN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Oh, you are singing my tune, Lawrence, which is really the shameful, sort of, false equivalence, and even worse really, unequal treatment that Democrats get four far less egregious behavior, and far less egregious language than do Republicans.

But I do think that there is a couple of reasons why this is a little sticky. First, as he said, it is eminently quotable. It is up there with no controlling legal discourse. It is out there with deniability, it is up there with a lot of freezes that are just so easily quoted, put in the headline, put on a t-shirt. Remember how the Trump people made hay out of deplorables in the election.

That is how unfortunately our politics operates these days. It is really kind of tailor made for a media that does not have the wherewithal to construct a entire sentence explaining a criminal investigation, but can manage to stumble through a Republican in disarray headline, and put forth the dispute about this.

I also think that it -- the lies, the false choice that Democrats have given themselves, that they either have to be running on democracy, or have to be running on the record. I think that this shows how important it is to do both, and how sensitive Republicans are to this chore, that they become anti-democratic thugs, small D.

You have for the first time, people like Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, all getting very outraged at the statement, because they know it makes them look like a bunch of thugs, and out to lunch.

So Democrats should not be shy on running on democracy, and running against crooks on the other side of the aisle. It does not mean they should not talk about 6 million jobs, it doesn`t mean that they shouldn`t talk about getting COVID under control, they can do both. And in fact, when you are presenting yourself, we have done these things, and don`t you dare give it back to the guys who have created a riot, and then have the gall to call that legitimate political discourse.

The two go hand in hand. It is the first part of the sentence, and the second part of the sentence. We did a good job, and you don`t want to give it to the lunatics on the other side of the aisle.

O`DONNELL: David Plouffe, you are the campaign professional here. What is your view for how the Democrats can keep the visibility on the issue of legitimate political discourse, saving democracy, and their own accomplishments legislatively in regards to the economy.

We just saw in the previous segment, it struck me that simply by me referring to Peter Navarro as an economist, by the way, a pretty bad one according to his colleagues, that was all it took for Eric Swalwell to swerve off the discussion we were having about the latest revelations in the possible Trump criminal conduct with those documents, and swerve right into it, seamlessly, his very quick pitch about the economy.

How do candidates handle that situation?

PLOUFFE: Well, Lawrence, I may bore people with this, but just going back to first principles. When you are running a race, whether it before the House, the Senate, the governors, first of all how many votes do you need? That is the most important question.

But, it will be, what is my main message about myself. When I have done, or would I want to do as a challenger. What is my main message against my opponent?

It doesn`t mean that there is only one. But there has to be a core message. And I think that in many places, that will be an economic message. How Republicans talk about the pandemic, if they recklessly did, so in might be part of. Democracy I think will be on the ballot.

So I think that Washington can help by having as much of the hearings, prime time, when that makes sense, I think it is important, so you of the viewership of that. Do clever storytelling, and great digital marketing, reaching the voters that can be moved on the democracy.

But I think in these races, in interviews, and debates that are going to happen out in the states, you are going to see Democratic candidates on the offensive. And say, I believe in democracy, you don`t. And think about that, if you are a Republican candidate, you either say in fact I do believe in democracy, I don`t think it was legitimate political discourse, and you run the risk of having turnout problems from the MAGA crazies, or you stand by Trump.

And I do think that there is going to be a lot of swing voters who, you know, maybe a third of the people in this country would be fine if we became an autocracy, super sad, but that is not the majority. The majority of people still believe we should be a democracy, and I think it`s for people to do that.

So, Washington and national Democrats have their place, but this will be won or lost in the trenches, in these districts, and in the states. And there will be some nuance to each of them. But the big thing, every Democrat has to do, from Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, on down to candidates, is you have to put the Republican candidate on the grill. You have got to make them feel the heat for January 6th, for legitimate political discourse, for doing nothing to build roads and bridges, to do nothing to help on the economy with exception of a few Republican senators.

[22:29:40]

And that really hasn`t happened yet because Democrats are in charge. And so I think you`re going to have to run a really, really effective, relentless campaign. Yes, about what you have done, but I think it is going to be more important, quite frankly, to make sure that you understand if the Republicans gain power, here is the harm they are going to do to the country, to your family, to your business, to our health care, and I think that can be effective.

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: David Plouffe and Jennifer Rubin, thank you both very much for joining us tonight.

Thank you.

And coming up, did Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene talk about what she calls Speaker Pelosi`s gazpacho police? Because she is stupid, or because she is in what Speaker Pelosi calls, a cult.

Former Harvard Medical School psychiatry professor Dr. Lance Dodes joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:34:59]

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): You know, the C in RNC doesn`t stand for committee, it stands for cult. It`s not the Republican National Committee. It is the Republican National Cult.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): They seem have to reached rock-bottom with their statement that what happened on January 6th was normal political discourse.

I say this to Republicans all the time, take back your party from this cult.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Is it a cult? Or is it stupidity? And what is the difference?

Today, the cult that Congressman Jeffries and Speaker Pelosi are referring to produced two new stunning displays of stupidity. One on video and another in a tweet.

First, the video.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): Now we have Nancy Pelosi`s gazpacho police spying on members of Congress, spying on the legislative work that we do, spying on our staff and spying on American citizens that want to come talk to their representatives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Now, we`re all capable of misspeaking at any moment, I do it with names sometimes right here on this show. I recently called Daniel Goldman, who I know very well, "David Goldman". That stuff happens.

The problem with Marjorie Taylor Greene is that there is no evidence that she actually knew the word gestapo when she said the word "gazpacho". If she knew both words and how to use them properly then what happened was just one brain cell misfiring at the wrong moment.

But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Marjorie Taylor Greene is so utterly ignorant not just about Nazi Germany, but about everything. And so relentlessly stupid that she actually thinks gazpacho is the name of Hitler`s secret police.

The last part of her statement is a classic display of the cult that Congressman Jeffries and Speaker Pelosi described. Marjorie Taylor Greene says that the people who attacked the Capitol and beat police officers nearly to death and vowed that they were there to kill Mike Pence were quote, this is what she said, "American citizens that want to come to talk to their representatives".

They wanted to kill Mike Pence. They wanted to kill Nancy Pelosi. They wanted to kill Chuck Schumer. They wanted to kill representatives. They did not want to talk to their representatives.

And there was this tweet today from one of the competitors for stupidest person ever elected to Congress, Republican Thomas Massie. I noticed it when he Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman framed it this way, "Siri, give me the stupidest thing anyone has ever said about health care." Thomas Massie tweeted over 70 percent of Americans who died with COVID, died on Medicare, and some people want Medicare for all?

If you need an explanation of what is so profoundly stupid about that statement, then you have to go back to kindergarten and start over.

Joining us now is Dr. Lance Dodes, a former assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Dodes is a contributor to the bestselling book, "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump", 37 psychiatrists and mental health assess a president.

Dr. Dodes, thank you very much for joining us again tonight. We always appreciate it.

As we`ve been hearing this word cult used this week and especially after the Republican National Committee issued that statement, calling what happened on January 6 a legitimate political discourse, I have been wondering, at what point we have exhausted the limits of political knowledge about this subject. And when we should be turning for you to your reaction to what we are seeing, what could make people, make this public -- call that attack on the Capitol legitimate political discourse.

What has pushed Nancy Pelosi to the point of calling her colleagues across the aisle a cult? What do you see in all of this?

DR. LANCE DODES, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL: Well, I think that the word cult is probably correct. What a cult is, especially a charismatic cult which is the kind we`re talking about here where you have an all powerful leader, Trump, who is seen as a godlike figure.

Those cults are self-contained, intentionally. If you are in one, you are required to believe the belief system (INAUDIBLE).

[22:39:44]

DR. DODES: And a part of that, which is important to understand, is that you are also required to deny or ignore or attack those people who challenge the belief system, which is exactly what we see from many of these Trump followers, who simply act as though they cannot hear and they attack those people who challenge it as happened to Liz Cheney.

The advantage of being in such a group is that you have an echo chamber of people who are admiring you and affirming you. It is a self affirming system. Everyone agrees on the same things and they all follow and worship the leader.

On the other hand, to stand up against that therefore means that you are an outcast. You`re a pariah. You get thrown out of the group. You get yourself attacked.

Another advantage of being in the group is that you are seen as superior to the outsiders. So, again we see that in the Republican Party. They are the ones they say who are defending democracy or defending whatever they think they are defending by attacking voting rights and so forth. That they are the righteous ones. And they get that out.

So in order to get through to them, you have to have somebody say the emperor has no clothes. They would have to see that Trump is, in fact, what he is a dangerous criminal, a psychopath which would be very hard for them because they pinned a lot of their hopes and focus on him, a lot of their actions.

You have to have somebody ideally, who is in the group speak up. Or even someone who is associated with it in the Republican Party.

I have wondered where George W. Bush is in all of this. You know, I don`t think he`s in that cult. But why is he not standing up? That is the sort of thing that we need people to be able to speak up and break the hold that the leader has on them, which is also partially not only a worship of him, but a fear of him of course and he has enormous power because he uses it and other people get afraid.

The people in Congress, especially, are afraid of losing their power and their jobs. That is a little different from the people who are supporting Trump in the public. But they have a special reason to be unwilling to take a moral stand in this issue. Morality, justice is -- go ahead.

O`DONNELL: So Doctor, it seems that one defense against cultism, one personal defense that we might all possess, or many of us might possess, is intelligence. You`re simply too smart to fall for the stupidity of what the cult is selling. What is the difference between adherence to a cult and stupidity?

DR. DODES: It helps to be stupid, but I think that they`re different because there are intelligent people who are members of cults, you know? As much as some of these people who are Republicans who don`t seem to care about either democracy or morality are odious to us.

They may be intelligent. Unfortunately, intelligence doesn`t help you when you`ve got these enormous internal and external pressures to stay in line with the leader. I think it has certainly a moral quality. People who have high moral qualities and values do standup, we sometimes consider them heroic.

They finally stand up and say this is not right, as Liz Cheney did. But I think we have to question the morality of these Trump followers because their morality is not strong enough to overcome their self interest at staying in the cult.

O`DONNELL: When we see some of the transcripts, for example, of FBI interviews of people who attacked the Capitol, it is stunning just how low- functioning their intelligence is in the information they processed that led them to that point.

DR. DODES: Well, yes. I think at one point in his campaign Trump said he loved uneducated people. And I think that is a part of it. Yes, I think that people who have the least complex thought processes are more likely to be vulnerable to dictators like Trump and the other monster dictators we`ve seen in the 20th century.

They are more likely to just fall into line and say, I wish to have someone strong who I falsely believe will look after me. I don`t have to think too much. I will do what that person says. I will believe whatever he says. So yes, it helps to be uneducated. And it helps to not be very smart.

O`DONNELL: Dr. Lance Dodes, thank you very much for joining our discussion again tonight.

DR. DODES: Thanks for having me.

O`DONNELL: Thank you.

And coming up, is there any reason for Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine now that he is already gotten what he craves most? That is next.

[22:44:50]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: The Ukraine crisis is here to stay. That is actually the first line of the "New York Times" lates reporting on Ukraine, under the headline "Putin is operating on his own timetable and it may be a long one."

"The Times" reports, "Despite the worrying troop movements, many analysts inside Russia continue to doubt that Mr. Putin will actually order a full invasion. The risks would far exceed any of Mr. Putin`s prior military pushes, like the five-day war against Georgia in 2008, or the still simmering proxy war in eastern Ukraine that he started in 2014.

Vladimir Putin wants a promise from the United States that its neighbor, Ukraine, will never be allowed to join NATO. The United States and NATO allies refused to give Russia that guarantee, but they also note Ukraine will not be offered membership in NATO in the foreseeable future.

[22:49:50]

O`DONNELL: Sending over 140,000 Russian troops to the Ukraine border now had already achieved most of what Vladimir Putin wanted -- attention.

A year ago, the president of France meeting with Vladimir Putin at the biggest table for two in the world, would not have made the front page of the "New York Times" above the fold, but it did this week because Vladimir Putin has now over 140,000 troops at the Ukraine border.

In Putin`s meeting with President Macron on Monday, "The Times" reports "Mr. Putin described a scenario in which Ukraine would join NATO and then with the western alliances` backing, try to recapture Crimea, the Ukrainian Peninsula that Russia annexed in 2014. That could then plunge all NATO allies, including the United States, into a war with Russia over Crimea.

Vladimir Putin is the dictator of a country that would be a minor player on the world stage if it did not have nuclear weapons. California`s economy is more than double the size of Russia`s economy. Think about that.

Russia`s utter failure to compete in the global economy means that the only way for Vladimir Putin to get the world`s attention is with troop movements.

Joining us now is Rick Stengel, former undersecretary of State in the Obama Administration. He is an MSNBC political analyst.

Rick, Vladimir Putin is getting the kind of attention that he can only get by sending those over now 140,000 troops to the Ukraine border. Is it at this stage mission accomplished for Putin?

RICK STENGEL, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: He has done a lot, Lawrence. I mean yes, he is greedy, and hungry for attention. He wants to be on the front pages every day, and he is.

By sending troops there, he is not just getting attention he is also doing something he wants to accomplish, which is to destabilize Ukraine.

What really threatens Putin is not the expansion of NATO, it is the expansion of democracy on his border and he wants to undermine that. And he can undermine that by keeping those troops there and keeping the country in a state of foil (ph) and disarray, to hurt their economy, and maybe give grounds for a right-wing authoritarian figure to come in there.

So I don`t think he will invade, which is what you are suggesting, and I agree with that, but he may just keep this going because it accomplishes a lot of what he wants anyway.

O`DONNELL: Doesn`t he also have a need to destabilize Ukraine because he does not want to see Ukraine move in a more Democratic direction, and open its economy, developing more thriving economy and embarrass this just absurdly pathetic Russian economy.

STENGEL: Yes. I mean Ukraine, for decades, centuries was the green basket of Russia. It has much fertile land that was ever in the old Soviet Union. In fact, in the 1930s, Russia actually starved millions of Ukrainians in something called the (INAUDIBLE). So Putin doesn`t want Ukraine to be in the West but I`ve been to Ukraine several times. People in Ukraine are westerners, they`re Europeans. They don`t consider themselves Russians. Although, they do speak Russian.

And the economy could be very vital. Russia always feels most safe when the countries on its border are weakest and poorest. And that is what Putin is trying to accomplish.

O`DONNELL: The dean of the School of International Relations that is run by the Russian foreign ministry told "The Times", Russia has departed from the tactic of simply asking to be listened to. Russian leaders have seen that this does not work and that it is necessary to make clear the risks of the Russian position being ignored.

And that is one way of putting it that the only way for Vladimir Putin to get this kind of attention and to, you know, get President Macron and himself on the front page of the "New York Times" at the giant table, is with moving troops to the border.

STENGEL: Yes. I mean, he is acting out in some ways like a child. I mean I remember when I interviewed Putin in 2010 in Moscow. He says the West doesn`t pay attention to him. The west thinks that Russians are monkeys. I remember him saying that. I mean he has this terrible sense of grievance.

And again, we would say, look he can accomplish what he wants through diplomacy. He seems to think he can only accomplish what he wants by acting out and being on the front pages for saber-rattling. And thereby trying to destabilize and unsettle his enemies.

[22:54:56]

O`DONNELL: Rick Stengel, thank you very much for joining us tonight.

Tonight`s LAST WORD is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: Time for tonight`s LAST WORD.

Now please note who is sitting behind Kevin McCarthy in this video indicating that she fully supports everything that Kevin McCarthy has to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): The president bears responsibility for Wednesday`s attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.

[22:59:50]

MCCARTHY: These facts require immediate action for President Trump. Accept his share of responsibility, quell the brewing unrest, and ensure President Elect Biden is able to successfully begin his term.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Kevin McCarthy, and the gun-toting Lauren Boebert gets tonight`s LAST WORD.

"THE 11TH HOUR" starts now.