Morning Joe - Joe: Republicans are on the wrong side of this moment culturally

Episode Date: February 10, 2026

Joe: Republicans are on the wrong side of this moment culturally To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

There was a bigger reason why TPUSA had to do their own halftime show, because the NFL's halftime show failed its one true mandate. Doing a halftime show in all Spanish is not unifying. The Super Bowl halftime show divided in a time that's supposed to be a unifying moment. They could have found somebody more uniting. Why the fuck is it the Super Bowl halftime entertainer's job to unify the country? job. Oh, there's another person whose job description is much more along those lines. Let me ask you a question. Hmm. I mean, it's a good question.

I guess so, yeah, the president. Hey, good morning. Welcome morning, Joe. It's Tuesday, February 10th. We have a lot to get to. But Willie, I still am just, you know, You know, the right, the MAGA right, always loved that they used to trigger Democrats. I have never seen a crazier, like, triggering event than a supertime half-time show, causing people to literally lose their minds. It's like Dave Drucker said, I don't listen to Bad Bunny, but it looked kind of cool. I mean, it's a halftime show, people. It's a halftime show. I mean, and it also, Willie, you know, because you know what I do.

We do the orphanage work. We come here. We go off-track betting. But while I'm reading the racing sheets for the dogs, I do two things. One, I listen to Italian opera, as you know. And second thing is, I watch C-SPAN. And yesterday, there's a color that goes, and people are going to believe this. and they're going to get up.

But yesterday there was a caller to C-SPAN. I actually saw this on X. There's a color of a C-SPAN who said, I go to opera and I don't know Italian. Like, why is this so difficult for you all? But it is. And they're like, my favorite, my favorite. And it was said in racist neighborhoods across America

over the past couple days, he's not even American. Why aren't we having an American here? More American than you two, more American than Paul McCartney, more American than go down the list. It's okay if they just want to admit their bigots. They can admit, we don't like brown people doing our halftime shows. They can just, they might as well say it because they're wasting a lot of time and energy going crazy, trying to blame it on everything else, Willie.

The desperate search for outrage of manufacture outrage has just been stunning to watch over the last several days. And again, like you say, you don't have to be a fan of Bad Bunny. You don't have to have understood the lyrics of Bad Bunny to appreciate the spectacle he put on for 13 minutes and the joyful spectacle that it was. And for those complaining that they don't understand Spanish and it shouldn't have been in Spanish, he even put up on the Jumbotron. the only thing that defeats love is hate. He even wrote on a football at the end that together we are America. He put those things in English for you.

So maybe if you didn't understand just by watching the joy on display that you could read it where he wrote it. It's just, you know, I see people yesterday just screaming, truly, truly becoming unhinged that football belongs to us. These are people, quick, quick, name two players on each team

and they couldn't do it, obviously. That goes without saying. But people, somehow, the fact that Bad Bunny, who is the single most popular artist on planet Earth, he had more streams last year than Taylor Swift on Spotify, just to put it into perspective, the fact that that upset you and makes you believe that a cultural institution called football is somehow being taken from you is just so revealing. And we should say the people you see on TV and podcasts screaming about it don't mean a word of it. They just have to fill and get kind of time.

They don't mean any of it. They don't mean it. mean any of it at all. But what they have to do for their audiences, they have to be shocked and stunned and deeply saddened. And it is something that the richest, most powerful, most entitled group of people are the ones screaming the most. And Mika Willie's exactly right. He's exactly right. After decades of conservatives accusing Democrats have embracing victimhood. The Magarite has been defined by, oh, the media is coming down.

Everybody's victimizing them. They're so put out and, oh, our country's being taken away. Republicans, they own the White House. Republicans own the House of Representatives. Republicans own the United States Senate. Republicans, I would never have said that before this past year, but I will say it now. Republicans own the Supreme Court. They refuse to rule on basic laws that they know,

basic things they know are unconstitutional. They're a wholly owned subsidiary right now of Donald Trump's White House because they do nothing. So they own Washington, D.C., and now they're so desperate, like Willie said, we've got to find somebody who's victimizing us. Let's make a big deal about the happening. half-time show and say that the NFL, the NFL, just so you know, this is what real conservatives are thinking about the NFL and get out. They're going, huh, okay, let's see.

So we can get the most popular artists in the world to come out here or a guy wearing squirts that hasn't had a hit in 20 years. No, we'll go with bad bunny. And so they go with a guy who's the biggest artists in the world, the most dreams in the world, who will help. I know this will be shocking because it's capitalism. Who will help with a demographic that historically spends less on the NFL than they do on other sports? Hispanic consumers spend a ton of money on sports, but a disproportionately low share on the NFL. There's a reason they're playing games in Mexico City.

There's a reason they're playing games in Spain. There's a reason they had bad bunny other than he's the biggest artist in the world. It's a capitalist move, which I thought conservatives like. But they're so busy building these phony fainting couches. To be shocked and stunned and deeply saddened, they overlooked what was an extraordinary halftime show. It was a Broadway musical. Did I understand the words? but I don't understand the words the most half-time shows.

It also created a lot of great memes, people waking up being able to speak Spanish, you know, after watching Bad Bunny. It was, but I will say, and then I'll shut up about it, it was a cultural marker. It was. The two things that happened this weekend, Donald Trump's racist post of the president of the United States and the First Lady of the United States being apes, followed by this intense, hatred for an American, for an American, for an American, for an American. It's been a defining moment for millions and millions of Americans. And the Republican Party is on the wrong side of this

culturally. And they're on the wrong side of history. They're also on the wrong side of capitalism. I mean, if they want to freak out and have people watch their shows and their podcast, that's fine. But the facts are the facts of the facts. 130 million people. 130 million people watched. Puppy Bowl, I think came in around 11, 12 million. That was pretty good, too. Yeah. And then the turning point event had that do.

I mean, you know, the numbers are the numbers. And it seemed like a lot of people liked it. That's the feeling I got. And the numbers seemed to back it up. Okay, so we've got a lot to get to. Yeah. Well, can I just say, Willie, we did point out yesterday that Mika was the only person that got the Super Bowl right.

Around the table, everybody picked. Everybody picked New England. What's that what was wrong with you guys? I mean, aren't you included into this stuff? I concede I did not appreciate how good Seattle's defense is. Wow, were they good? But also, Drake May, we love you. You got a bright future ahead of you.

No one's denying that. But, man, really laid an egg in that game. I think some people expect that he was hurt. He got a shot in his shoulder before the game. Didn't say anything about it. Making excuse. is now. Maybe, but that also, Joe, doesn't account for, like, throwing into

quadruple coverage and basically a punt that the safety could catch in return. Yeah. Not great. He was not help Mika. As Mika said, Mika was watching the game, she said, let me tell you something. His offensive coordinator is not helping him right now. Nope. She kept saying it. She said, just dump it off.

A quick route to the tied end, just two steps back, boom, do a quick slant in, boom, quit just throwing out into the flat. They've got that. Now, they're literally, Mika said, look, he's 15 yards off. Just do a quick in-rout. She was right, as always.

Mika's always up for the checkdown. She's always talking about checking down. As I said, Joe, I mean, I was trying to explain this to you throughout the whole Alabama thing. It's all about the coaching. Okay. And again, I don't know. A lot of you guys have issues listening. I'm right here to help you out.

Okay, I'm right here. Thank you. Just got a whole. Thank you, sweetie. Thank you. Okay. All right, we have so much to get to. We've got new data on ICE that shows what the administration claims doesn't appear to be true. An update on today's show co-host Savannah Guthrie, putting out another plea for her missing mother, saying the family isn't an hour of desperation. We're going to bring you the latest on that investigation. With us, we have the co-host of her 9 a.m. hour, staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, and co-founder and editor-in-chief of Semaphore, Ben Smith, is with us. And Joe, there's so much to get to that we're a little backed up because of our discussion on the Super Bowl halftime show, but well worth it, especially giving the massive numbers that it got.

You know, Mika, as we like to say, this is not news. This show's like jazz. We just kind of move it around wherever we go. I'm going to play to Ben Smith now. Play your solo baby. But Ben, you know, and you kind of, you wrote about this. I saw something in the New Republic about it as well that I keep referencing the article instead of actually bringing the author on of the article.

But you know, it's interesting. MAGA had a year ago at the Super Bowl, it was really sort of peak MAGA culturally. I really had their cultural moment, guys scoring touchdowns doing the Trump dance. It's probably about the high water mark for the right in American culture since like the middle of the 80s, Ronald Reagan. I mean, in one year's time, it's extraordinary how much that has changed. They are now, as Bruce Springsteen saying, like, there's a darkness on the edge of town. That's where MAG is culturally, you know, pushing hysterically back against the largest artist in the world, pushing hysterically back against the NFL, the most powerful.

organization of the world. And it seems sidelined culturally. And these things, as you know, better than most of us, these things actually matter a good deal. Yeah, you know, I mean, I think there's, you know, Trump is so unusual and so unprecedented in so many ways. The way he operates is so different. You sometimes miss the parts that are, that are kind of totally predictable and in a sort of an American rhythm. And one is that right after you get elected president, everybody says, oh my God, this person has changed everything and will rule for a thousand years. And it felt that way a year ago. And, you know, and a year later, you know, as you say, like the big mass capitalist culture of the Super Bowl sweeps everything else before it. I mean, I don't think it's totally

insignificant, the turning point, by the way, put on a real show and had a real audience. I think there is a new MAGA subculture that is, will have some staying power and will endure. And Like, that's pretty impressive to get a few million people to your alternate halftime show. But that's not, but that's not mass American culture. And I do think just in a number of different ways, Trump has sort of has returned to Earth, actually the way every president does after about a year. And his, you know, his ratings are down. His cultural sway is down.

And he's enmeshed in all sorts of minor controversies, many of them of his own making. And so I just think that, you know, what felled a year ago, like this kind of huge cultural pivot in America has swung back. And one of the stories that's not going away for the president is the Epstein files. Convicted sex trafficker Galane Maxwell refused to answer any questions yesterday during a deposition for the House Oversight Committee. Maxwell, as you know, is a longtime companion of Jeffrey Epstein, serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in aiding Epstein's sexual abuse of underage girls. But she repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination yesterday. Ms. Maxwell, did you at any time play any role in Jeffrey Epstein's activities involving the recruitment, grooming, or trafficking of young women or girls?

I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence. Can you please provide us with all the names of other additional co-conspirators to the crimes perpetuated by you and Jeffrey Epstein? I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence. Maxwell is trying to get her conviction overturned. The Supreme Court rejected her appeal last year. In December, she requested that a federal judge in New York consider what her attorneys describe as substantial new evidence that her trial included constitutional violations. Maxwell's attorney told the Oversight Committee, she would be willing to speak fully and honestly, if granted clemency by President Trump. The Justice Department, meanwhile, invited members of Congress to view the Epstein files at D.E.E.

DOJ headquarters, and many lawmakers are pointing out that many of those files still remain redacted. Congressman Rokana and Thomas Massey, the co-sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, said some of the documents appear to have been redacted by the FBI or grand juries before they arrived at the Justice Department. What I saw that bothered me were the names of at least six men that have been redacted that are likely incriminated by their inclusion in the state. files. There are six men, some of them with their photographs that have been redacted, and there's no explanation why those people were redacted. What we're after is the men who Jeffrey

Epstein trafficked women to. We want those names published. We're not out to embarrass people. And the problem is we went in there hoping to see that in 302 forms. What we found out is those three or two forms were redacted before they got to the DOJ. At least one is a U.S. citizen, at least one is a foreigner, and the other three or four have names. I'm not sure if they're foreign or U.S. And which field do they work in? Is it finance, banking, political? One is pretty high up in a foreign government. And some are, they're, one of the others is a pretty prominent individual. leading that bipartisan effort.

Let's bring in MS Now's senior Capitol Hill reporter and host of way too early Ali Vitale, and MS now Justice and Intelligence reporter Ken Delanian. So, Ken, I'll start with you. You heard Thomas Massey there, the congressman hinting at some very high-profile names and the frustration that we heard, not just from the two of them,

but for many members who got a chance to go in and review these volumes of documents, the frustration about redactions that did not appear to be protecting victims. Yeah, that's right, Willie. And I got to say, those of us who have been around government a long time and covered government, this redaction process of the Justice Department was an enormous undertaking involving hundreds and hundreds of lawyers. And there's no way that senior people at the DOJ reviewed every one of these documents.

So you are going to find, and they are finding errors, mistakes, over redactions, as they mentioned, and stuff that was already redacted when it came in. And we've already seen that. And in some cases, the Justice Department has rolled back some of the redactions. Now, Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, is on social media pushing back against some of the observations of Massey and Kana in some of these cases. But I have no doubt that there were some mistakes made, some redactions that should have been, shouldn't have been made, and they may or may not fix those things.

You know, the whole point of grand jury secrecy is that if people are identified in criminal investigations. They may be implicated. There may be evidence of wrongdoing, but if they're not charged, those things are supposed to remain secret. Obviously, society has decided there's a different standard in the Epstein case, and people want these names. They want any evidence that any of these men were involved in trafficking or were aware of trafficking. And that's a reasonable thing. And they're going to get that. I have no doubt eventually that every single name that's relevant here will eventually be exposed. Well, and there is. of public interest, Allie, obviously because so many of these men that are being protected by

Republicans right now, whether it's Republicans in the Department of Justice or Republicans on Comer's committee, a lot of these men either are in government here or across the world or are prominent figures that maybe, I mean, we're seeing the head of the L.A. Olympics, seeing, you know, artists that he represented leaving for good reason, if you look at some of these things. But I guess the question is, why do they continue? When somebody, let's say Julie Brown point something out, that they're protecting a guy that was talking about underage girls. Like, why are Republicans protecting these powerful elite? why are these Republicans protecting the Epstein class that's running this country in the world?

And I think what Ken pointed out in regards to the way that things are done through the typical judicial process versus the court of public opinion where a lot of this is being litigated is pretty central to answering that question, right? Because what you're hearing from Thomas Massey, after he goes in and sees these redactions and sees that some of the files are still redacted with names that don't make sense, he is now threatening to go to the House floor and do what the Epstein victims have long wanted to do but cannot, which is read out some of these names and put them into the public forum. It doesn't matter whether or not they can be prosecuted. Instead, it's light being the best disinfectant. And if the goal here, which it should be in part, is to just give these survivors accountability, clarity, justice for what happened to them, then that could be some of what gets them there. Because as I've heard these survivors, to Capitol Hill and talk about what they want to see here, a lot of it is just validation of the harm that they experienced at the hands of some of these men. And that is what I think some of these lawmakers are driving towards. I also think there's a question when it comes to what was redacted to what was the intent of DOJ and who were they trying to protect. I had on one of

the members who got to see some of those unredacted documents at DOJ yesterday, Congressman James Walkenshaw. I asked him pretty clearly, did it seem like they were doing redacted to protect, for example, the President of the United States and the number of times that his name's name pops up in these files. And he pretty clearly told me it does seem that way. He's not the only member, frankly, that has told me that, too. And so then it puts things squarely at the feet of the oversight committee as they are starting to ramp up the number of depositions that they're doing. Why are they not calling in some of these people? Yes, the president, but even below that, the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnik, I was asking that question of Comer yesterday. He says

he doesn't want to disrupt the depositions that are already on the books. I don't know how adding to the number of depositions is going to disrupt the ones that you already have booked. But this is now a ballooning question on Capitol Hill. If the oversight committee is going to do the investigation, which they should in tandem with DOJ and the oversight that's being done there, then there's an open question that they are going to continue to be asked, which is, why are there some people that you're interested in talking to and others seemingly who might happen to be Republicans that you aren't? Yeah, and I mean, John Lemire, I guess that's the question. You have Howard Lutnik, obviously.

Republicans, I'm sure Republicans would love for Donald Trump to fire Howard Lutnik. Here's a guy who appears to have lied through his teeth saying, oh, I'm so shocked. I stopped talking to him in 2005. And then he's giddily asking if he can bring his family over to Rape Island. And then you find out in the files that he's living next door to Jeffrey Epstein. I mean, so, of course, that would have gotten you fired anytime, place anywhere unless you're in the Trump administration. First of all, and secondly, this isn't good for Republicans. It's not good for the administration. It's not good for Donald

Trump. It's not good for anybody. And then you add on top of that that that Republicans on the Hill and Republicans in the Justice Department are protecting the Epstein class. Why, I mean, why wouldn't Comer demand from Pam Bondi that she redact the names of these people that are talking about young girls, that are talking about little girls. Why does James Comer want to protect those horrible people? Why do Republicans want to protect those horrible people? Why are they so invested in protecting the Epstein class? And I'm serious when I say this next thing. I don't get it. I don't understand. Thomas Massey is the only Republican, it seems, that is out there that doesn't want to protect the Epstein class.

They have made it their mission on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue to protect the Epstein class. And I will say, I don't understand what's in it for them. Yeah, it's a question of consequences. We are seeing, for instance, in the UK, some powerful people in politics, the government, they're losing their posts because of ties to Jeffrey Epstein here in the U.S. That simply hasn't happened. Now, certainly, There are some who have suffered societal consequences, people whose reputations rightly have been ruined because of their associations with Epstein. But we haven't seen someone in Washington really take a fall yet, no one in the Trump administration. Now, some of that is because people are trying to weaponize these leaks.

I mean, Elon Musk, who, mind you, does appear in these emails himself, but he's using them as a cudgel to go after Steve Bannon, who was all over them. You know, and then there's Howard Ludnik who I've talked to, you know, we talked about this yesterday briefly, Joe. there were some, a number of Republicans who say, look, this is abhorrent to what he did. Also, just in terms of political expediency, he's an easy fall guy. Like, if you feel like you need to have a sacrificial lamb, Lottnick's the guy. He's not particularly well-liked in the Trump administration to begin with, though Trump himself is very fond of him. But that hasn't happened yet. There's no sign of it.

And Ken Delanyum, you know, we're obviously waiting at the end of the month for these Clinton depositions to come. And then there's this moment, which is, of course, his race scrutiny is to, well, shouldn't Donald Trump be doing that? And, of course, the Congress is saying that's certainly a non-starter. But there's so much still we don't know. There's all these redactions. There are still so many files we'll never see. Is there any sense that more of this could eventually see the light of the day through some sort of legal process or act of Congress, even if it's perhaps, you know, when the House changes hands? Yes.

In a word, yes, Jonathan. In fact, there's a whole group of documents that the Justice Department has decided are privileged and not subject to release. that nonetheless, I'm told by sources are being reviewed and redacted as a contingency in case a judge orders them release. So yes, there are lots of documents you're right that we haven't seen that would be relevant that maybe some litigation will spring free. On the question of are they covering up for Trump or whoever else, I just want to add a data point, you know, weeks ago before this release, I was told by a source at the Justice Department

that there was concerned by the people redacting about a particular document that accused Donald Trump of having sex in a very graphic way with an underage girl. When these things dropped, I saw that document. You probably all have seen it. It disappeared for a while, and then it was back. And so that told me that they may be trying to cover things up, but they're not covering everything up because that was the one thing that was flagged inside the Justice Department. There was real concern that that would never see the light of the day, and it did come out. So that's just the data point, guys. MS now Justice and Intelligence reporter Ken Delaney and an MS now senior Capitol Hill reporter, Ali Vitale.

Thank you both very much for being on this morning. Overseas, King Charles says he's ready to support U.K. police looking into claims that former Prince Andrew gave confidential information to Jeffrey Epstein. A statement shared by Buckingham Palace yesterday reads in part, quote, while the specific claims in question for Mr. Mountbatten, Windsor, to address, if we are approached by Thames Valley Police, we stand ready to support them, as you would expect. The statement comes after police said yesterday, they are assessing reports that the former prince sent trade reports to Epstein in 2010. Let's bring in MSNOW international reporter, Innes de Lekwetra, live from London with more. And Ness, what more can you tell us? Hey, good morning. Yeah, the Epstein scandal here, really engulfing both Buckingham Palace and Tenten

downing street and there has been real action taken so when you look at the royal family of course we knew of Andrew's ties to Epstein's why he was stripped of his royal titles back in the fall but police is now confirming that they are investigating claims that Andrew may have sent Epstein confidential information while he was international trade envoy the latest batch of DOJ documents appear to show Andrew sending Epstein an email in which there were reports of a recent visit he had taken to southeast envoy. Now, in response, the palace issuing a rare statement saying that the king remains deeply concerned about allegations involving his brother and that the palace is prepared to assist police in their investigation. What's really interesting to see is the parallel between that

scandal and what's happening here at 10 Downing Street. Here, the central figure is Peter Mendelsohn, the former British ambassador to the U.S. He is believed to have potentially leaked market sensitive information to Epstein when he was business secretary. He's under criminal investigation. There are calls for Andrew to be treated the same way. But Kier-Starmor yesterday, the British Prime Minister really fearing for his political future. The day unfolded very quickly, but the day started with his Director of Communications resigning. That was on the heels of his chief of staff resigning over this scandal. And then throughout the day, there were growing calls for him to step down from his political opponents, of course, but also from some within his own party.

The highest ranking labor official to call for him to step down was the head of the Scottish Labor Party, saying that, The distraction needs to end. But remarkably yesterday, we did see Kier Starrmer meeting with Labor members of Parliament at Westminster in the evening and a British media report that he was very forceful in pushing back on calls for him to step down. So I'll just read you one quote. He said that after having fought so hard for the chance to change our country, I'm not prepared to walk away from my mandate and my responsibility to my country or to plunge us into chaos as others have done. I will say, so there's certainly a push for accountability here, but there is also politics that play, right?

So, Kier Starrmer, there are many within the Labor Party who are not happy with Kier Starmor, who were hoping to kind of use this to get him ousted. But Starmor, very forceful there and pushing back and saying he will not step down. MS now international reporter, Inest Aliquiterra, live from London. Thank you very much for your reporting. And still ahead on morning, Joe, 84-year-old Nancy Guthrie has been missing for more than a week now. Now we're going to take a look. Today's show co-host Savannah Guthrie's new message, asking the public for help.

Plus the latest on the Homeland Security Funding Fight, playing out on Capitol Hill ahead of Friday's shutdown deadline. And as we go to break, a quick look at the Travelers forecast this morning from ecuethers Bernie Rayno. Bernie, how's it looking? Miko warmer are on the move today into the northeast. Your acuether exclusive forecast 50 in Pittsburgh, 46, Washington, D.C. Some snow, though. New York State Thruway toward Albany, Boston, according to an inch of snow later today, that stays north of New York City. In the southern tier of the United States, it feels like, well, late March and April with sunshine and warm today. Travel lays, not many. Just watch Boston this afternoon because of that snow.

To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the AcuWeather app today and enjoy the view. Beautiful shot of the Capitol as the sun has yet to come up over Washington, but so much is going on there. Ben Smith, your latest piece for Semaphore is titled how Trump's politics returned to earth. And in it, you write in part, Trump's political standing, which has evolved over just a few months from dominant to desperate, is a good reminder of a few things conventional wisdom has gotten wrong. Remember the deep fake panic? Last year, many were convinced American politics would be deep. destabilized by videos manipulated by artificial intelligence or lulled into a post-truth stupor by AI slop. But it turns out that the political story of 2026 has been real videos on TikTok,

Instagram, and YouTube. The files related to the investigation of the late sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, are an oil spill, oozing through global politics and discrediting elites and would-be counter-elites alike. Trump's other early source of power last year was a cowed media. The Washington Post, with its rapid pivot toward a Trump-curious editorial posture, seemed to be a case in point. However, the Post is a cautionary tale for two reasons. First, the publication appears to have fired its audience without acquiring a new one. And second, while owner Jeff Bezos may have protected his space company from presidential retaliation,

there is no sign. The Post won any benefits from the president or his movement. A whole bunch of different messages here. And it crosses a lot of industries, Ben. If you stand up to him, you stand to do better. And secondly, the one thing I would counterpoint with you is that it does appear that... The public has been annoyed to a lot of behavior, to a lot of things that would never pass muster in previous lifetimes, are now just slowly going by without any accountability. And I even talk about the ice raids. We try and report on them. We try and follow on these stories where people are being held in detention centers and you can't find them.

And some of them are U.S. citizens. Some of them are not. Either way, their rights are being violated. and there's outcry, there's reaction, but there's no accountability, literally none. Who's been fired? Yeah, and I think there are deep changes to the country that aren't you going away. Right. And to people's tolerance. I mean, the other is for members of the president's family, just making enormous amounts of money. Enormous.

But, and I do think that a lot of that damage, a lot of that change, probably permanent. But it's also true that Trump has gone. There was this sense early on that, wow, he can get away. with this stuff politically. His party's not going to be damaged by it. He's not be damaged by it. We're in this kind of new era where no rules apply. And I think that's not true anymore. He's very unpopular. His party is panicked about the midterms. And there's not a sense that Americans actually like this stuff. I know. I'm always looking at the negative. Joe, jump in. Yeah, yeah, yes, yes, you are. John Lemire, we, we, I know, I want you to

take the next question to Ben, but the Washington Post was brought up as, by Ben, and he's so right, they fired their audience. They didn't acquire a new one. They've, they've still done some good investigative reporting, but at times they've also been far to, let's just say they've, they've tipped their, their hand far too many times trying not to upset Donald Trump. But let's look at a case study of what does work in the Trump era. And I, we brought it up the other day, the Wall Street Journal, what Emmett Tucker has done. Every single day, it seems, there is a new story. And these are Pulitzer-worthy stories. There is a new story detailing how the Trump family is getting richer from dealings with oligarchs, getting richer from dealings with, dealings with

other countries. You could go down the line. But Wall Street Journal day in and day out, they're doing that kind of reporting. It's kind of like what Ferenhold did in the 2016 can. campaign following the money. You look at the Wall Street Journal's editorial page. Also, again, I bring this up because this is a Murdoch-owned company. The editorial page, you know, we don't agree. I don't agree with what they say a lot of the time. But man, when it comes to holding Donald Trump to constitutional norms and political norms, they've been right there. And what's happened? The business is going up. I mean, I think the number of subscriptions have gone up at least 10, 15% since Tucker became the editor. There's a right way to do it. There's a wrong way to do it.

And if you do it the way the Washington Post does it, you end up with a shell of a once-grade institution. Yeah, and there's no question. There are still some very good reporters there doing good work, particularly covering the agencies at the Washington Post. But like a third, almost by some estimate, it's nearly half of the staff let go. Just a bad day, not just for that paper, but for the city of Washington for the country. But you're right. There are some the organizations that are thriving. Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, among them, who are doing really, really good work. And Ben, we love to check in with you every so often through the state of the media. You're so good at this. It does feel like an inflection point. I mean, the Washington Post is a self-inflicted

wound, right? Jeff Bezos, he could afford to pay these people. He chose not to. He has other interests in mind. Although, as you write, it's not clear he's received really any benefits, though he's perhaps been spared by Trump's, spare Trump's wrath. But there, you know, there are already so many external challenges to the media business right now. You know, but it does feel like those, there's still some outlets that are looking at Trump and are scared and are scared of what he could do, even though there has been a successful model shown. You can just simply do the work. Yeah, and I think, I mean, I think, you know, Joe is totally right, the journal.

And Rupert Murdoch, for all the probably deserved criticism he gets through the years, clearly understands that the relationship between a successful publication and political power isn't just to do whatever the president wants. It doesn't get you anything and that the media sort of has its own source of power. CBS's ratings fall, too. Yeah, and I think one way to look at it, though, is Trump has been pretty unsuccessful attacking places like the New York Times, like the Atlantic directly, and where he's been successful is when these things like CBS are parts of big conglomerates, and he can find leverage somewhere else and go after them, find leverage in their attempt.

you know, to buy Warner. And that's really, you know, what CBS's bosses are worried about and they're willing to sacrifice the news to some degree to get something else done. And I think that's, you know, to me, like the big takeaway for in this moment, it's not always true. And it changes, is that that kind of independence is really important. The new piece is available to read online now. Co-founder and editor-in-chief of Semaphore, Ben Smith. Thank you very much. Really appreciate it. Willie. Now to another story very personal to us here. Today's show host Savannah Guthrie pleading now for the public's help in finding her missing mother more than a week now after the 84-year-old believed to have been taken against her will from her home in Arizona. In a new video posted to Instagram yesterday, Savannah directly addresses the public thanking them for their support and prayers, but imploring anyone watching to report possible tips to law enforcement in what she calls an hour.

of desperation. We believe our mom is still out there. We need your help. Law enforcement is working tirelessly around the clock trying to bring her home, trying to find her. She was taken and we don't know where. And we need your help. So I'm coming on just to ask you, not just for your prayers, but no matter where you are, even if you're far from Tucson. If you see anything, if you hear anything, If there's anything at all that seems strange to you, that you report to law enforcement, we are at an hour of desperation. And we need your help. Savannah's new message comes as the FBI says it still has not identified a suspect or a person of interest in the case,

adding additional FBI personnel from across the country will continue to deploy to Tucson. Law enforcement has been investigating a series of, unsubstantiated ransom notes, but the FBI says it is not aware of any continued communication between the Guthrie family and suspected kidnappers. Join us now former senior FBI official Chris O'Leary. He served in the FBI's Counterterrorism Division and is the U.S. government's director of hostage recovery. He now also is an MS now, National Security, and intelligence analyst. Chris, good to have you back with us this morning. So we are now nine days into this since Nancy Guthrie, according to the FBI, was taken against her will from her

home in the middle of the night, didn't show up for church two Sundays ago, and that's when the police were called in. What do you take from Savannah's new message? Well, I think it's very smart. It's asking the public for help with their eyes and ears. This is something the FBI routinely does because there's a finite amount of resources that the FBI, other federal agents, and state and local law enforcement bring to the problem. But the American public, millions of people are gathering information every day. And they may know something about somebody that is close to them, that is unusual, that they're willing to share, because on its face, this is a horrific crime abducting an 84-year-old

grandmother and mother out of her home and just violates. you know, the trust and safety that every American wants. So I think it's a very smart move. And often FBI investigations are resolved through the help of the public. So the FBI is positioned to take every tip that's in. They have special resources that can quickly assess and triage any information that comes in. So volume is not going to be an issue. Chris, in the absence of any other information, there's been a lot of focus on these alleged

ransom notes. There was a deadline of 5 p.m. local time yesterday that came and went, according to this one ransom note that TMZ and some other outlets got. From what you're hearing or just from your trained eye and ear, how significant do you believe these alleged ransom notes are? I mean, there's a good chance, and I think maybe the FBI feels this way, is they were not. presented from the actual kidnappers? Yeah, that's certainly a concern because the FBI does work, kidnap for ransom cases almost on a weekly basis, not generally in the United States, but in Mexico, Central and South America, Haiti, across Africa and South Asia,

but professional kidnapped for ransom organizations immediately established contact with law enforcement and with the family, and then to go. negotiators will start at $5 million or whatever the asking price is and get down to a reasonable level that the family is willing to pay. And at the end of the day, the exchange is made, and it's a business opportunity. And it's quite lucrative for a lot of these organizations. This doesn't appear to be that. So it's either captors that are not good at what they do, or these letters are not authentic. And the FBI is going down the wrong place. trail, but what we won't know because the media and the public's on the sidelines, the FBI and the

family are not going to give up everything that they know. So the statement from the FBI that was put out last night, while it may seem desperate, might not be completely accurate because if the FBI is closing in on an individual location, they're not going to want that individual to know it because the assumption is that the captors are also getting information from the media. And that's the issue, which my last question sort of is more on how just everybody is feeling watching this because we love Savannah so much. And the agony is, we can't put it into words just as a professional. Are you surprised at where we are right now in this in terms of how little there is to go by that this hasn't seemingly progressed in any direction after what day are we at? Are we at even 10? I mean, have you ever seen

something like this before? Go this long with on the, from the outside, nothing. I don't think this is unusual, unfortunately. I think the issue is we have this incredible media attention. Savannah Guthrie is loved. Her family is obviously close to the public's heart. But But the FBI, despite the dysfunction and ineptitude of FBI leadership under Kempattel, is staffed by professionals who do this all the time. Investigations take time. So they are working 24 hours a day, gathering information and evidence, and really working through the problem.

And as evidenced just recently by the capture of Zubair al-Bel-Bakouche, who was responsible for the Benghazi attack, the FBI will find the individual responsible for this and hopefully very soon locate and recover Mrs. Guthrie because they are the finest professionals in the world despite the effort by the Trump administration and Cash Patel to damage the organization. And this is really demonstrative to the fact that these crisis situations are why we need an FBI, highly capable and political. Why law enforcement matters, if anyone's wondering.

But thank you for that. That's heartening and hopeful. Former senior FBI official, MS now National Security and Intelligence Analyst, Chris O'Leary, thank you so much for your analysis this morning. And still ahead on morning, Joe. One prominent Olympic athlete is speaking out after President Trump attacked her teammate for just disagreeing with the administration's policies. We'll show you that moment. Plus, we are getting new reporting this morning about arrests, Made by ice. Donald Trump has promised to go after the worst of the worst, but the new numbers suggest way otherwise. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. It brings up mixed emotions to represent the U.S. right now, I think. It's a little hard. There's obviously a lot going on that I'm not the biggest fan of, and I think a lot of people aren't. Just because I'm wearing the flag doesn't mean I represent everything that's going on in the U.S.

Those are comments from U.S. Olympic skier Hunter Hess at the Winter Olympic Games in Milan that drew the ire of President Trump. Meanwhile, two-time U.S. Olympic champion snowboarder, Chloe Kim was asked yesterday about those comments and defended her American teammate with a call for unity. President Trump has called your teammate Hunter Hess a real loser. Would anybody like to address that or talk about how you feel representing Team USA right now? Obviously, my parents being immigrants, this one definitely hits pretty close to home. And I think in moments like these, it is really important for us to unite and kind of stand up for one another for all that's going on. And I think that I'm really proud to represent the United States. The U.S. has given my family and I so much opportunity, but I also think that we are allowed.

to voice our opinions on what's going on. And I think that we need to lead with love and compassion. And I would love to see some more of that. Two-time gold medalist Chloe Kim there. Join us now, MS Now contributor Mike Barnacle, Chief White House correspondent for the New York Times, Peter Baker, and contributing writer to the Atlantic Eugene Robinson. He's the author of the new book, Freedom Lost, Freedom One, a personal history of America. Good morning to you all. Gene. I'll start with you with those comments. Chloe Kim basically echoed what Hunter Hess said a couple of days prior, which is that I am proud to be American. I am proud to represent America, but at the same time, I can be critical of policies. That's the way it works in our country. You can love your country

and go compete to represent your country and win gold medals for your country, but you're allowed to be critical of things you don't like in your own country. That's the beauty of America. Yeah, it's a beauty of America. That's the beauty of the first of medicine. That's the whole point of America, really, that you can be critical of your government. And no one was more skeptical of government or more certainly skeptical of the idea that government is always right. And, you know, my country, whatever it's doing. No one's more skeptical of that than the founding fathers. So obviously Hunter Hess is right.

Chloe Kim is right. President Trump, as usual, is trying to drive a wedge. He did, this is, this is his move. He drives wedges and to separate his, his MAGA base from everybody else and to keep his MAGA base on side. And so he uses Hunter Hess as his foil this time. Yeah, and there's nothing more American, frankly, than having the right to say when you disagree with what your country is doing. You can love it, but also say, I don't love everything that we are implementing right now. And it's just, I mean, we saw it with the Super Bowl, too. President Trump, like, criticized bad bunny. And, like, when you're on the other, when you perceive a halftime act as saying, our message is love and unity, and you perceive that as an attack against you, well, you're sort of telling on yourself.

And Mike Barnacle, I mean, this is, the Olympics are obviously a global stage. There's, of course, great patriot and pride in what these athletes are doing. But to Eugene's point, President Trump, his only move at times, it seems like, is to sow division. And right now, we have a phenomenon where an American president is rooting against American athletes. He's rooting against American athletes. He's rooting against America's allies. He's made us friendless in the world. He has nearly destroyed NATO. He's gone to war verbally with Canada. we are now not the same country internationally, globally, that we were a shoe fort years ago. And with regard to this, the most American thing you can do is say, I love America.

I'm a member of the United States of America. I'm a citizen. My family has grown up here. I love this country. I just wish that we would stop putting five-year-olds in refugee camps and taking them out of their homes and off the streets of the cities that they live in. There's nothing more American than that. Less than, by the way, let's look at this new data, less than 14% of the nearly 400,000 ICE arrests in President Trump's first year back in office involved individuals with

violent criminal charges or convictions. That's according to new reporting from CBS News, citing an internal DHS document. CBS reports that the The document shows during the first year of Trump's second term, nearly 40% of those arrested by ICE did not have any criminal record at all and were only accused of civil immigration offenses, such as being an undocumented person living in the U.S. or overstaying a visa. And this is where they sometimes call people criminal illegal aliens. And they're just undocumented. It's not someone who has committed a crime like a murder or a rape.

They're not the worst of the worst. Exactly. CBS notes that the document also shows that while roughly 60% of those arrested had criminal charges or conviction, the majority were not for violent crimes. According to the data from the document, it reveals less than 2% of those arrested had homicide or sexual assault. convictions, while another 2% were accused of being gang members. MS now has not obtained or verified the internal document. Peter Baker, what more can you add to this? Because again, the promise is,

worst of the worst. And yet you see people having their cars bashed in. And it's still, by the way, reporters on the ground in Minneapolis are not seeing much of a change. This drawdown of 700 personnel still has 2,300 or so there compared to the size of the police department, which is a lot smaller. Just what has changed, if anything? Are we seeing any significant changes in the way ICE approaches things, as was promised, or is it business as usual, which is U.S. citizens and people who are undocumented having their American rights violated by these federal agents who are armed and dangerous? Yeah, I think this all goes to the heart of the tension over Trump's immigration policy, right? I mean, he won in 2024 in part because the Biden administration had failed as far as many Americans were concerned at the border.

And I think that a lot of Americans are supportive of what Trump has done at the border. The border flow has basically stopped. It's a more or less secure place now, certainly more secure than it had been at one point. But I think they believe the president was going to go after the worst or the worst, as he said he was. if you listen to President Trump, you would think 98% of the people they're going after are gangbangers and murderers and the worst of the worst rapists and so on.

The way he talks about the people they're going after always suggests that these are, you know, violent thugs. And this number that you're showing today from CBS that they obtained from DHS, by the way, not from some outside organization from the Trump administration itself, suggests only 2% are murderers

and guilty of homicide are charged with homicide, 2% are gang members. And most of them, in fact, ordinary people working their lives. Maybe they have gotten in trouble with the law in terms of, you know, some issue here or there, but are not the people out there that Americans wanted off the streets. And that's why they're reacting to the pictures that they've seen out of Minneapolis and other places because it's not what they thought they were buying into. At least that's what the polls so.

Yeah, you look at that 14% number. That may be over the whole year. But, Willie, if you look specific, You look specifically at what they've been doing the past couple of months. The Cato Institute, funded in large part by the Cokes, the Cato Institute is showing they're down to like 6, 7%. The people now that are getting swept up, only about 7% are the worst of the worst. Or these violent criminals. The rest, again, do not fit the description because maybe the numbers were higher the first few months.

but now they literally are just going street by street by street and grabbing, well, we've seen children swept up in this dragnet and still locked down in ICE facilities instead of getting the worst of the worst. And again, this is internal DHS data. This is not even some media reporting. It's reporting to the extent that they got the documents, but the numbers are coming from DHS, and it's not the first time we've seen DHS numbers like this. This is consistent from what we've seen from the beginning.

The worst of the worst are not. being scooped up, but they're meeting quotas. Stephen Miller has set quotas for these ice agents. You've got to arrest this number of people in this city, in this period of time. And that's when you get the windows of cars being bashed in and women dragged out. That's when you get five-year-olds scooped up with their fathers in Minnesota and sent on planes to Texas before being ordered back home by a judge. This is about meeting some quota. This isn't about getting the worst of the worst. This is about a show of force. which Joe, as we've showed time and again, and especially lately,

is deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people, who, as Peter said, wanted the border secured. Mission accomplished. If the president would smart a lot of Republicans are starting to say, he would declare mission accomplished, do a photo op at the border, whatever you want to do, and walk away from this as police go or some ICE agents go and do get the worst of the worst.

Everyone supports that, but not what we're seeing in the streets of our cities right now. Yeah, and that's what we've been saying from the beginning ourselves. Celebrate the closed border. Celebrate the fact that the border is secure and then make an arrest every so often with the worst of the worst. But these quotas, we've been very clear on this show and predicted this. These quotas are a political nightmare for Donald Trump. These quotas are a political nightmare for Republicans. These quotas are nightmares for American citizens, some of whom have been killed and shot. what certainly looks like execution, an execution style killing.

And so these quotas are doing nothing, positive, nothing good for America, for Minneapolis, for the White House, or for Republicans in general. It is a losing proposition. Let's bring it right.