Morning Joe - Morning Joe 10/14/22

Episode Date: October 14, 2022

Key takeaways from the January 6 hearing

Was Speaker Pelosi involved in the decision to delay National Guard assistance on January 6th? Those are serious and real questions that this committee refuses to even ask. Jim Banks just raised some very serious questions that should be answered by the January 6th Commission, but they're not. This cannot be just we're waiting for so-and-so. We need them there now, whoever you got. You also have troops. This is Steny Hoyer. Troops, Fort McHare, Andrews Air Force Base, other military bases.

We need active duty, National Guard. How soon in the future can you have the place evacuated, cleaned out? I don't want to speak for the leadership that's going to be responsible for executing the operations, so I'm not going to say that because they're being on the ground and they're the Well, just pretend for a moment it was the Pentagon or the White House or some other entity that was under siege. And let me say, you can logistically get people there as you make the plan. The question from House Republicans asked and answered. But wait a second. I'm so confused.

Yeah. You know, I'm just a dumb country lawyer. It was really speaking for itself. But they asked the question. They sure did. Right. After Steve Scalise had known the answer. He was there.

So he said, that's a great question. Why won't they answer whether Nancy Pelosi called the national? This is so terrible. And they won't answer. He was in the room. He was in the room. He was in the room where it happened. He was in the room where it happened.

I mean, come on. So much for being in the room, right? Willie, just bad faith. I mean, outrageous that Steve Scalise is there when you look around and Thune and everybody else is looking around going, are we going to get out of this alive or not? And Scalise is in there. And then Scalise holds a press conference and they're like, this committee is, we can't, we can't be on this committee because, you know, they won't even ask the question. Did Nancy ever call the National Guard? Scalise was there when she was saying, hey, pretend like this was a Pentagon.

Pretend like this is the White House. Do something now. Yeah, I mean, it is staggering to see that clip. That's footage, by the way, we had not seen behind the scenes of not just Speaker Pelosi, but many members of Congress, many Democrats doing what President Trump was not doing in that moment, which was trying to rally the National Guard, trying to get people there from the military to stop the attack on the call pressing for the National Guard to get to the Capitol. Steve Scalise, as you said, knew that because he was right there when it happened in the background watching as Democrats pleaded for help. And as you say, there he is on the left, highlighted on our screen in the select committee exhibit there. He's listening to the call. It's on speaker. There's Mitch McConnell. There's John Thune. Look around the room. Republicans and Democrats, leadership of the Congress trying to rally the National Guard from Maryland and from Virginia to get to the Capitol. As with everything they knew they were there and now they've gone out and lied about it. But I mean, Steve, just because you're wearing a mask doesn't mean we can't see you behind there and that you can't hear and see what's happening in front of you. I do want to ask you, Michael, and I'm serious about this. I couldn't imagine in a million years holding a press conference as a member of Congress.

I was there being that cynical, lying through my teeth on an issue, on any issue, but especially an issue of this importance. And even if for some reason I had fallen off a scooter the day before and I was dizzy, there would have literally been 12 people on my staff grabbing me saying, you can't do that. Go back into your office. You need to tell them you're not going to do this. I don't understand all the barriers that were up when you and I were there. All the rules that were in place, really just rules of common decency, not going out and lying through your teeth. My God, But on issues this important. Yeah, this important. But Joe, at the end of the day, they just spent the last four years lying. So in this final moment, why are we surprised that you see Scalise in the room at the table next to the phone that's open for everybody to hear,

and then you go out and you lie about it, because that's what they've been doing. It's the herd mindset that says, we have built this wall, we've created this narrative, we're going to stick with it, come hell or high water. So I'm not surprised that we now have video and audio evidence of what happened in that moment. Not surprised that they would then go out and lie about it.

And nor should the country be at this point. And Nancy is the most aggressive. She's incredible. And she's being a leader. She's doing everything she can. She's being a leader. As they're coming in and you see, we'll show you all of the highlights from the hearing yesterday, but they did a split screen where you see this moment, you see her working the phones, Chuck Schumer,

working the phones, trying to get help before somebody gets killed. They know that somebody has been shot. They know that they're pouring in. And then they cut to the scene of the attack, the attack on the Capitol where, you know, throngs of people with weapons are pouring into the United States Capitol. There is no question here that these leaders were trying to get help in January the 6th in these recordings, one Mike Pence, who was was working hard to help clear the building. And the other Mitch McConnell, who I've heard from a lot of different sources who've said that Mitch was absolutely insistent that they were not going to let the rioters have their day. And when everybody else was saying, we can't go back and vote today, we're going to have to vote somewhere else. It was Mitch McConnell that said, no, we're going to vote here. We're going to vote today. They will not win. So, you know,

there were Republicans and Democrats who who put country first on January the 6th. It doesn't look like Steve Scalise was one of them after. Yeah. And with Mike Pence, you know, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer had almost resigned themselves to saying, you know, we'll come back tomorrow. We'll come back in a couple of days. How can we possibly vote? Look what's happening right outside the walls of our office. And then they get that phone call on the speakerphone from Vice President Pence saying, I've spoken to the sergeant in arms. We're going back tonight and we're going to get this done and we're going to vote. So, yes, that's we knew that that Mike Pence wanted that. We knew that Mitch McConnell wanted that. But to see it on tape like that and to see, yeah, Republicans,

but mostly Democrats rallying effectively to save the democracy in that moment. It's just extraordinary footage that, as I said, we haven't seen before. Absolutely. We're also following the new legal pressure on Donald Trump, the Supreme Court rejecting his call to intervene in the Mar-a-Lago documents case while the January 6th committee votes to serve him with a subpoena. At least Larry Thomas was on this. No, he wasn't. No, he wasn't.

As you can see, we have Michael Steele with us, former chair of the Republican National Committee, also with us, congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post. Jackie Alemania is back. I told you. Not letting you go. She would be back. NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delanian. He's going to be here to help us sort through exactly where the case is now and what yesterday's Supreme Court ruling meant.

And. There's a lot to sort out. For some big time context, author and NBC News presidential historian Michael Beschloss joins us as well. We brought Michael along. Yeah. For the deep thoughts. Exactly. So let's get right in to the new evidence and video laid out by the House Select Committee investigating

January 6th. We learned new details about Trump's premeditated plan to declare victory and got a look at never before seen footage of top lawmakers taking shelter during the attack on the Capitol. And there was the dramatic vote to subpoena the former president himself. This afternoon, I am offering this resolution that the committee direct the chairman to issue a subpoena for relevant documents and testimony under oath from Donald John Trump in connection with the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. General Lady yields back. If there's no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the resolution. Those in favor will say aye.

Aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote. A recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the roll. Ms. Cheney. Aye.

Ms. Cheney, aye. Ms. Lofgren. Aye. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Mr. Schiff. Aye. Miss Cheney. Aye. Miss Lofgren. Aye. Miss Lofgren. Aye. Mr. Schiff. Aye. Mr. Schiff. Aye. All right. Even as Trump continued to push the big lie in public, White House insiders told the committee that he would openly admit he lost behind closed doors. At times, President Trump acknowledged the reality of his loss. Although he publicly claimed that he had won the election, privately, he admitted that Joe Biden would take over as president. Here's a few examples of that. So we're in the Oval, and there's a discussion going on.

And the president says, I think it could have been Pompeo, but he says words to the effect of, yeah, we lost. We need to let that issue go to the next guy, meaning President Biden. I remember maybe a week after the election was called, I popped into the Oval just to give the president the headlines and see how he was doing, and he was looking at the TV and he said, can you believe I lost to this effing guy? Mark raised it with me on the 18th. And so following that conversation with the motorcade ride, driving back to the White House, and I said, does the

president really think that he lost? And he said, you know, a lot of times he'll tell me that he lost, but he wants to keep fighting it. And he thinks that there might be enough to overturn the election, but, you know, he pretty much has acknowledged that he, that he lost, but he wants to keep fighting it. He thinks that there might be enough to overturn the election, but he pretty much has acknowledged that he's lost. Donald Trump knew he lost, so he had to come up with another strategy to somehow make it look like he won. The committee showed even before the election took place, Donald Trump planned to declare victory no matter what. We also interviewed Brad Parscale, President Trump's former campaign manager.

He told us he understood that President Trump planned as early as July that he would say he won the election even if he lost. And just a few days before the election, Steve Bannon, a former Trump chief White House strategist and outside advisor to President Trump, spoke to a group of his associates from China and said this. And what Trump's going to do is declare victory, right? He's going to declare victory. But that doesn't mean he's the winner. He's just going to say he's the winner. When you wake up Wednesday morning, it's going to be a firestorm. Also, if Trump is losing by 10 or 11 o'clock at night, it's going to be even crazier. No, because he's going to sit right there and say they stole it.

I'm directing the Attorney General to shut down all ballot places in all 50 states. It's going to be no. He's not going out easy. If Biden's winning, Trump is going to do some crazy. There it is, Joe. Just saying it out loud. That's Steve Bannon on Halloween, October 31st, 2020. Remember, we heard that from Roger Stone to another close Trump ally in that documentary a few weeks ago that came out where he said the key is to claim victory no matter what happens. Once you've laid down that marker, you work from there. Ken, how's that for intent? That's kind of. They don't have it in Donald Trump's mouth yet, but that's pretty strong. Yeah, it really is. And Michael, I remember we made a big point before the election about how the Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania legislators needed to pass laws that others were asking them to pass to make their voting system. No, not like Denmark, like Ron DeSantis's Florida.

Because let me tell you, the thing I love about Florida, and I've always loved about Florida elections, you know who won by like 8.30 at night. You look at Miami-Dade, you look at Broward, you look at Palm Beach County, which Republicans call the killing fields. And if Republicans are down by 300,000, they've won. Like I literally knew at like 7.30 on the of Bush's reelect that he won. Right. And that he won so much in Florida, held down the losses that he was going to going to win for the night. But we said with all this talk of stolen elections, they needed to do what Florida did.

Democratic governors wanted them to do it. And if they had passed the legislation, if they had counted the early votes like Florida, when the early votes came in, in most other states, we would have known by 10 o'clock at night that Trump had won Wisconsin, that Trump had won Michigan, that Trump had won Pennsylvania. We also said, just to let everybody know how planned out this was, we said what Bannon said. The early votes, the day of votes, were going to break Trump's way. The votes that broke Biden's way would take a week to count. So Trump could take advantage of the ambiguity. Yep.

And that's exactly what happened. That's exactly what happened. And that's what Bannon's saying. That's what Bannon's saying there. That's what that's what the narrative was in large measure is part of a plan or strategy to create the levels, different layers of chaos. So it starts with, you know, the whole attack on the system itself. Oh, early voting or vote by mail, all the things that traditionally Republicans have done. Certainly I did when I was national chair. I mean, how do you think we rack up those

votes in 2010? It was getting those ballots in the hands of our senior citizens early. It was allowing them to take advantage of vote by mail and other avenues. But when you chip away at that, the backside narrative is, oh, if there's any ambiguity or any discrepancies or if it takes too much time, it's because of fraud. And so this was a set up narrative going back to June, July of 2020. I mean, Trump had already come out and said this. Now we just have the hard evidence that that was an inside discussion that I mean, the way Bannon is talking about that, it's like they'd already. I mean, we're playing this out. And let me tell you, on page three, this is what we're going to

do. And by the way, Chris Christie said that Donald Trump had told him in like May or June that he was going to basically lose the election. But he started talking about it being rigged because of the military. The trend line was there because of covid. And we can't forget the environment of the political environment at the time at that point in 2020 going into that summer the election had already started losing steam for trump because of the way the administration handled covert and the way the country was responding to that he knew they knew so their backup has always been how do you reassert a different narrative and all well it's clearly cheating it's clearly fraud it's clearly these other problems and he's just going to come out and say it regardless of what the results are.

Right. And so this at this stage, we've now got enough evidence that's out here, you know, that, you know, smart reporters like our two friends here have been tracking and trying to get everybody. Can you just read the narrative? Because they're telling you the narrative, Joe. Right. It's not like they're hiding the ball from you. Now the question becomes, after all of this evidence, what is the country prepared to do? I mean, when a political party tells you that we're going to steal the election from you, that we're going to take it from you, and then they're saying in the upcoming election, give us the power back so we can do it again. What what what what are you taking away from all of this evidence that's being presented? You're sitting back, you're waiting for Justice Department, you're sitting back,

you're waiting to see what state of Georgia is going to do. But the American people have the first crack at this. It's called November 8th. Right. It's called when you go to the ballot box this November. You've got the evidence. I don't know what the hell more you need. Right. When you've got the leadership of the party telling you, give us the power back and we'll then tell you what we're going to do with it. Well, they already have.

Yeah. You just seen the evidence of it. And Republicans running for office now made them saying out loud they're happy to fulfill Donald Trump's wish and to tamper with the elections and to not honor the results and the outcomes of what happens at the ballot box. So Michael Beschloss, as we watch this dramatic hearing unfold and we watch all that footage, it was punctuated by this unanimous vote of the committee to subpoena finally Donald Trump himself to get testimony and documents from the man who, of course, is at the center of this entire story. Unprecedented. How rare is it to see a former president called in front of Congress this way

and to have him be subpoenaed? I mean, he says he's going to come out and respond to it at eight o'clock this morning, I guess, on his social media channel. But he's already attacked the committee for subpoenaing him. Right, Willie, I can't wait. And good morning, Mika and Joe and everyone else. This was a plot against American democracy. And hearing by hearing, the January 6th committee has shown that Donald Trump was the architect. And it goes even further. You know, not only did this start last summer, we now know very convincingly, but what was he after on the 6th of January? We saw it in that film yesterday.

We've heard it in testimony. It leads you to assume that what Donald Trump wanted on the 6th of January was violence. That's why the National Guard didn't come. That's why Schumer and Pelosi were forced to get on the telephone and plead with the governors of Virginia and Maryland, for God's sake, to send their National Guard from other jurisdictions. And what was Trump after? He was not only after trying to win the election. I think he wanted violence so that he would have the pretext to

declare martial law. You know, the number of times we've all heard him at these large rallies saying, I've got these powers under Article Two of the Constitution that are so big that I'm not even allowed to talk about them. He has been itching to do this for a long time. So there could have been violence. There could have been what was violence, could have been assassinations on Capitol Hill that day, could have been a hostage crisis with members of Congress

and leaders taken hostage, including the vice president, who, of course, is the president of the Senate. Plus those electoral college ballots in that wooden box, every indication that someone in that crowd wanted to grab those,

destroy them or take them somewhere else so they could say there's no president. Donald Trump has to stay in office. He has to hang on. Then there's chaos. So this was not just trying to grab an election. This was trying to destroy our democracy. And if we let that happen again, it's our fault. And Jackie Alimany, you've been covering the riots at the Capitol for months. There are many people who have served time or are serving time because of this. What stood out to you yesterday in the hearing? Yeah, Mika, I think what stood out to me most was this compilation of new emails that they showed from people like Tom Fitton, people who were giving Trump's closest associates at the White House advice about how to handle Election Day.

You had Tom Fitton, who's a conservative blogger, highly influential in right-wing circles, who's now been advising the president on how to handle the Mar-a-Lago boxes cases, writing to Molly Michael, who is still Trump's assistant down at Mar-a-Lago, that they should declare victory and to stop counting the votes at midnight. So, Michael, I can't echo enough what you just said. The plan was to muddy the waters, as Steve Bannon has said over and over again. They wanted to kill the Biden presidency in the crib. And this was a plan to that that was going to be implemented regardless of whether or not Joe Biden won. But I think that, you know, this investigation is not close to being over now that they have subpoenaed the former president. Something that I think that the committee could potentially do here is actually now finally subpoena Trump's phone records and see if he was who he was talking

to. This is someone who did a lot of business on his personal cell phone. So, yes, they have the White House call records already, but that haven't necessarily shown any direct lines between Roger Stone and Trump on January 6th, January 5th, January 7th, although we do know he was in touch with Steve Bannon. But was he in touch with any extremist people on the ground? Enrique Tarrio, any of the Proud Boys? Was he talking to Tom Fitton about, you know, trying to declare martial law? These conversations could potentially come to light now that they have subpoenaed him. At the end of the day, I mean, obviously, it's unprecedented to Sabina, a former president, for his phone records. But whoever the phone carrier is, you know, we have countless anecdotes of aides trying to confiscate Trump's personal cell phones

and then him sending another aide to go out and buy a new one. Will that phone carrier hand over these documents? That's a big question. It's something I'm going to be looking for. The last thing that I think I was wanting more of was, has the committee come to understand how to address people who have fallen for this grift, people who have been brainwashed, fed the big lie, fed these lies by Trump, and how they can address this going forward, this rod and this problem of domestic violent political terrorism. And that's something I'm really going to be looking for in the final report. You know, what have they come to understand about the insurrectionists

and how can they prevent this from going forward other than giving people prison time? Exactly. insurrectionists and how can they prevent this from going forward other than giving people prison time exactly so ken with his usual presidential dignity president trump said last night the unselect committee of political hacks and thugs will hear from me tomorrow morning at eight o'clock in the morning losing his touch with the insult nicknames by the way we'll put that to put that to the side he's losing his game yeah, not not not his best work on that. So, Ken, but he's been subpoenaed for testimony under oath. His records, his phone calls, all those documents have now been subpoenaed. It felt like it had to come to this. After all, he is the man at the center of all this.

Is there any chance this committee, is there any chance the American public hears from Donald Trump under oath or at least sees him plead the fifth a whole bunch of times? I guess it will depend on whether Donald Trump decides to roll the dice and think that thinks that he has a story to tell and wants to actually do this, because if he resists, I don't see how it happens. I mean, there just isn't enough time. This committee is going to be going away in fairly short order. And so I really don't see how he they compel this testimony unless he agrees to do it. But I was struck yesterday. What really stood out to me as somebody who's been following sort of the security situation and the role of the intelligence agencies and what was known was the new information about really disturbing tips that came in to the Secret Service. But they came from the FBI.

What are your tips? Yeah, I mean, about Proud Boys and Oath Keepers potentially bringing guns to Washington to kill people. And, Ken, there was one where you actually had an FBI agent begging the Secret Service, please, please take this seriously. Take this seriously and investigate further. And that was not done and i think that's a complicated story you know there's a whole group of staffers who work for this committee uh that has been looking into the security failures they didn't get a hearing there's

been no hearing about this um i there's going to be a chapter in the report on what happened with the national guard there'll be another chapter on all these warnings it's a complicated story in some part these agencies were cowed by Donald Trump. I mean, Chris Wray was waking up every day wondering if today was the day he was going to be fired at the end of the Trump administration. So why didn't the FBI write an intelligence bulletin sharing some of this information, raising the alarm? But I don't know about you guys, but while this was happening, I can remember thinking,

how can this be happening? How is this group of rabble, you know, entering and invading the Capitol? Where are the security agencies? What is going on? And it's. You know what? I was thinking while it was happening, I was thinking about the letter that Cheney and all the former DOD, the secretaries of defense, had written. Right. the secretaries of defense had written and published in the paper saying, don't get involved

in this political fight. And so while the National Guard was sitting tight and they weren't doing anything, I just kept thinking, oh, my God, Cheney and all the secretaries of defense were right. They're not sending in the National Guard. That's right. And there was a worry that Trump was going to invoke the Insurrection Act. And so if you remember, the mayor of Washington didn't want federal troops around the city. So that cut both ways. But there's a story of the FBI getting a lot of signals about potential violence and saying, well, this is incredible and specific enough. So we couldn't act on it.

And it's very clear now that they there was a giant miss here. I mean, they had a lot of evidence inside to me. I remember that day at the later hour of the day as more and more questions were being raised about how does this how does this happen? I mean, I grew up here in Washington, D.C. I've seen virtually every national event on the mall and on the Capitol steps. You just don't get to breach the Capitol. You just don't do that. And so for a lot of us, it was like, this seems a little bit too easy. Yeah. And now we're just getting these narratives, these stories that are evolving or emerging that says, well,

you know, within the FBI, there are reports of this concern about the number of FBI agents who actually align themselves with this MAGA crowd or with the Proud Boys. Even after the attack. Even after the attack. So I think there's, to Ken's point, there's a lot more narrative. You guys are going to get on this. I'm sure there's a lot more narrative to tell about what was going on leading up to inside of these particular agencies. that allowed this to happen, to allow military, militarily armed individuals standing in the front row at a presidential address who aren't Secret Service or FBI agents. So there's a lot here, folks.

I'm sorry. There's still a lot to unpack. Michael Beschloss, we don't know if the committee has found anything that the Department of Justice can use to indict the president of the United States or a jury could use to convict president of the United States. But I think it's safe to say when you read the Wall Street Journal editorial page this morning, a page, let me say, that still likes to throw around the term Russian hoax, despite the fact that, you know, that should really just be saved for members of QAnon. But the Wall Street Journal editorial page has consistently attacked Donald Trump because of January 6th. And this is what they say about what the committee accomplished. What the committee has accomplished, however, is to cement the facts surrounding Mr. Trump's recklessness after November 3rd and his dereliction of duty on January 6th. The Justice Department and

Mr. Trump's own campaign repeatedly told him that his fraud claims were without basis, whether it was willful blindness or an intentional strategy. he kept repeating them. The January 6th committee probably won't get Mr. Trump under oath, the editorial ends, but the evidence of his bad behavior is now so convincing that political accountability hardly requires it. And of course, historical accountability, I would guess, Michael, the same. Right. And they're sort of the same thing, because, you know, we're establishing for history what was done. And we're doing it for two reasons. Number one, to bring the guilty to justice. And that may well include Donald Trump.

And the other thing is to strengthen our system to make sure that this never happens ever again in the future of our democracy. But, you know, the thing that strikes me is that so much of this was happening in public view. Go back to the 12th of December, almost a month earlier, before January 6th, and Ray Caterio was at the White House on Parler putting out pictures of himself standing in front of the White House. And I remember thinking at the time, what is he doing there? And Bill Barr quits and Esper is gone. And I'm thinking, why are these people leaving after Donald Trump has lost? You know, what is so terrible ahead of us that even lackeys like Esper and Barr, who prove themselves happy to do somersaults for Donald Trump for years, think that this is so this is so terrible. They've got to get out of here. And there would be reports that Donald Trump was making small changes in obscure offices, obscure appointments in the Justice Department and the Pentagon and elsewhere.

And for this guy who's so notoriously indifferent to detail, why was he doing that? So the point is that this was all happening in front of our eyes. We've discovered, thanks to the committee, a lot of things that we did not know before. But on the 6th of January, had those riders been a little bit faster and had the security been a little bit less, we could have seen assassinations on Capitol Hill. And there would have been a little bit faster and had the security been a little bit less, we could have seen assassinations on Capitol Hill. And there would have been a lot of support among a lot of people for Donald Trump saying, I've got to restore order, martial law and things that are even more authoritarian than that. It was that close. And by the way, there are, of course, still Trumpers, and we've heard some of them say,

oh, nobody was going to try to kill Mike Pence. You have no evidence that anybody was going to try to kill him. You have no evidence that people wanted to kill Nancy Pelosi. We saw yesterday, again, more video of people screaming at the top of their lungs, bring her out, bring her out, yelling over cops to bring Nancy Pelosi out so they could kill her. It's again, you really, you really have to take leave of your senses to not suggest that these people wanted to kill, hang Mike Pence and kill Nancy Pelosi.

And it makes the sound bites that we started the show with even more despicable because we are dealing with how close we came, not just to our democracy being interrupted, but as Michael points out, assassinations in the Capitol. Michael Beschloss, thank you very much. And still ahead on Morning Joe, we'll be joined by a member of the January 6th committee, Congressman Jamie Raskin, on the heels of yesterday's hearing and vote to subpoena former President Donald Trump. Plus, the Supreme Court deals a blow to former President Trump, rejecting his request to intervene in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

Ken Delaney will explain for us that development. Frank Atkins here. Also ahead. He's a smart country lawyer. Things got heated, real heated, during a debate between Wisconsin Senate nominee Ron Johnson and Mandela Barnes. What Ron Johnson said that had the audience alternating between laughing at him and booing. Yikes. And there was another debate last night between

Michigan's gubernatorial candidates. We'll take a look at what they had to say about the Second Amendment and school safety. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. heard about Houston, heard about Detroit, heard about Pittsburgh, PA. You ought to know not to stand by the window. 37 past the hour, live look at Washington, D.C. With the spinners. Yeah. It's Friday morning.. With the spinners. Yeah. It's Friday morning.

It's the spinners. And it's still dark out, but it's time to get up and go to work or turn that computer on. Okay. Go to sleep. The Supreme Court. You know what? What do they call it? What is that? I was like, go to work.

Soft retirement. Quiet quitting. Quiet quitting. Just quiet quit. Listen, you'll quietly be fired a couple of months from now, but it's Friday. All right. Here we go. The Supreme Court has handed former President Donald Trump a loss.

Boy, that's a big loss. In the dispute with the Justice Department for the documents over those documents seized from his Mar-a-Lago home and club in Florida. In a brief, in a brief unsigned order with no dissents noted, the high court rejected the former president's request that the special master be allowed to review the more than 100 documents marked as classified. The batch is just a small part of the 11,000 records that federal agents seized in August and concerns that Trump unlawfully kept official White House records after he left office. The decision does not affect the Justice Department's access to

the same documents as part of its criminal investigation. So can help us out here with with the procedure. This actually reminds me if I if I were a law student, like they would, you know, this would be a great test. Right. So what does this ruling leave in place? What does this ruling push aside? What's the status of the case right now? You have three hours. Oh my goodness. I'm not aware. So look, it leaves in place the 11th Circuit ruling, which, remember, was the product of a three judge panel. Two of them were appointed by President Trump, which stayed part of Justice Aileen Cannon's order that put all these documents in front of the special master. What the 11th Circuit said is in terms of the classified documents, the 100 classified documents, those have no business being reviewed by a special master. And the FBI

should immediately get access to them for their criminal investigation. Right. So the Trump lawyers took part of that to the Supreme Court. They said, we think the classified documents should be reviewed by the special master. And by the way, if that had happened, you know who else would have gotten the classified documents? Trump and his lawyers. So that was, I think, the real intent of that request. So this is about as strong a rebuke as you can imagine. A one sentence order, not a single justice, not even Clarence Thomas finding any reason to put any stock in the arguments made by Trump's lawyers. And remember, that was like an 80 page brief full of extraneous arguments, none of which persuaded any single Supreme Court justice. You know, it's so interesting, Michael.

I know somebody who's associated with the 11th Circuit. Very conservative. Very conservative circuit. And this person said to me, Trump's 11th Circuit is going to like just knock him down because they're conservative. But they don't they don't put up with they're not they're going to be really offended by this BS. Just like I did, somebody who was connected to a conservative Federalist Society judge in February of 2017 when Trump attacked the Bush appointee. Right. When Trump attacked the Bush appointee for one of the rulings and just said he doesn't know what he's just done. If you attack the independence of one federal judge, you attack the independence of all federal.

And I'm sorry. I understand people are offended by the Roe decision and the overturning. But these people have believed this legally since law school for the most part. But in these cases, the Supreme Court, 65 to nothing, let's stand in place, federal judges, Trump judges, not going along with the nonsense. And yesterday, again, in a matter of great import, something that rose above politics, the court again said, don't bother us with this. We're offended.

One sentence, gone. separation they're they're they're still outside of the mainstream of judicial prudence uh that that you that you hope and expect from your judges in other words they're going to look at the the the arguments that are presented to them they're going to weigh those against the facts and the law as they say um and they're going to rule accordingly and you're right the 11th circuit so it's not you know it's not the ninth. You know, it's a conservative circuit. And so I know a lot of folks initially were like, oh, my God, you know, this is this is all going to be Trump lawyers sort of give handing him what he wants. And what they did was they stood up the Constitution. They stood up the rule of law. They applied the law to the facts and to the arguments that were being made.

And then to Ken's point, they just came back with one sentence and basically said, hell no, go back home. This isn't going to work. And that's that's good. That's refreshing. Now, I don't know how much more strain the judicial system is going to be able to withstand in the coming months and years. But at least right now, they're holding to the constitutional law. That's absolutely right. And can I just say, though, that this whole debate about the special master has been a little bit of a sideshow because while this has been going on, the FBI has been diligently interviewing witnesses about what happened to those classified documents.

And this week we learned that they talked to a Trump employee who says he was ordered by Trump to move those documents after the grand jury subpoena came in. So this investigation is very active, very serious. And it goes to questions of obstruction as well as mishandling. And by the way, I have said time and again and people after Cannon's ruling were like, you're wrong, Joe. I've said time and again, the Supreme Court, for the most part, if it doesn't have to do with ideology, if it has to do with things that Donald Trump did when he's trying to push the rule of law, they've held firm. And of those 65 justices or judges, federal judges, I've read some of their rulings to see how conservative they are. They're really conservative, like things that were just right. But again, I think I think what Michael said

bears repeating. There are outliers. There are always outliers. And Judge Cannon has humiliated herself. And and does seem to be the aberration here, doesn't she? I mean, that's judging by the record of the court and the 11th Circuit and now the Supreme Court. And you're absolutely right. You know, this is Trump also lost, remember, in the Supreme Court on his taxes and on the election appeal. So it's a pretty consistent record. OK, so, Jackie, I'm going to sum up, first of all, on the point you made about phone records, I often saw and heard that Donald Trump used other people's phones. So I wonder what you think of that. And then is this the last hearing? Do we expect more? What are next steps, especially in

terms of the Trump subpoena and time running out? So next steps are they've got to put the paperwork together to actually get that subpoena to the former president, then there's going to be ostensibly a deadline for him to respond to them. It's a very good question about whether or not he was using other people's cell phones. We do know that the committee, though, has subpoenaed other people for their phone records, bank accounts. They have really done an extensive job. This may or may not be the last hearing.

I think there could be another one potentially that will reveal the highlights of the final report, but that probably won't come until after midterms. But look, the committee right now, they're losing staff. Lawyers are transitioning to new jobs. They are slowly winding down. That is the reality. But they do have a big task ahead of them. They've got to write this thing. They do have a few assigned writers on the committee who are charged with that. And different lawmakers are in charge of their various sections. But Trump could completely change the script if he decides to cooperate in some way, which is highly unlikely. But there are new documents that could be coming in. The National Archives

could happen to stumble upon something new, deliver it to the committee, maybe Secret Service hands over more. Maybe they re-interview Tony Ornato, Bobby Engel. There's always a wild card here with this committee. They do a very good job of keeping some surprises. All right. Jackie Alimani and Ken Delaney, and thank you both very much for your reporting and analysis. We appreciate it. And coming up ahead of the midterms, President Biden has been skipping the big rallies and focusing instead on fundraising. Mike Allen of Axios joins us ahead with more on that, plus the debate stage last night. Wow. Republican Senator Ron Johnson claimed the FBI set him up. Well, well, that's exactly what the audience did. This is amazing.

Ron Johnson goes full Mary and Barry. Yeah. Come on. I was just going there. I was just going there. Well, the audience was with you because there was a lot of laughing at him, not with him.

We'll have more when Morning Joe comes right back. The FBI set me up with a corrupt, with a corrupt briefing and then leave that to smear me. I am. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. All right. He is referring to corruption with the FBI, which I've been trying to uncover and expose. All right. So do we have time for please, audience, please? We're trying to get through these. Please, please don't laugh at a sitting United States senator who is making a fool of himself. So we've gone, Michael Steele. Ed Luce just helpfully sent me a text. And he said, we've gone from the full Monty to the full Mary. Of course.

Right. Ron Johnson goes full Mary and Barry. The FBI set me up. The FBI set me up. You know, I don't know. There's no shame. There's no shame. There's no anything. They just throw this crap out there, and they just say the wildest stuff.

Yeah. And you look at them, you go, okay, so when did they have time to do that? What purpose would they have to do that? Are you really that valuable that they're going to? He's trying to cover up. He reminds me during Abscam. I don't know if you remember that scandal that they're going to? He's trying to cover up during ab scam. I don't know if you remember that scandal, but during ab scam, you had a member of Congress who was shoving so much money into his pockets. He just he couldn't close it.

He had too much cash. Mike Allen is here. Mike Allen's here. And when they asked him what he was doing, he was saying he was conducting his own investigation on corruption. He was going to go and check the serial numbers on all those bills. And what about all the money in the freezer? You were here for that. Oh, yeah.

Freezer. All right. Will I take us through the debate? All right. So, yeah, this is a race in Wisconsin between Ron Johnson and Mandela Barnes, where Johnson has opened up a little bit of a lead now in recent polling, up six points in the most recent poll. So they went back and forth. Johnson, of course, the Republican incumbent. Mandela Barnes is the Wisconsin lieutenant governor. Here's some of the other highlights from that debate last night. We do know he got a degree in communications specializing in performance.

So he's a performer. He's an actor. And I don't know whether he's just delivering lines somebody wrote for him or whether he's making this stuff up on his own. Look, the biggest achievement in business was Ron Johnson saying, I do. He married into his business. He didn't start that from the ground up. What do you find admirable about your opponent? Well, no, no, seriously, I do think, you know, the senator has proven to be a family man,

and I think that's admirable. Likewise, I appreciate the fact that Lieutenant Governor Barnes had loving parents, a school teacher, father worked third shift, so he had a good upbringing. I guess what puzzles me about that is with that upbringing, why has he turned against America? I mean, why does he find the economy of America awful? So, guys, that is the case. We heard some laughter. We heard some boos for the sitting United States senator. But that is, if you boil it down, the case that Ron Johnson made last night and has been making, which is that Mandela Barnes is not representative of most of the state of Wisconsin, that his views and things he said in

the past about police and about the country suggest he doesn't love the country enough. That's Ron Johnson's position. You know, it's just so despicable. It really is. When somebody asks you to say something nice about the other person, what they don't understand is you get points from voters for saying something nice about your opponent. This is one thing that Bill Clinton understood that so many people don't understand. It'd be so often somebody would say, ask, well, the Republicans, they say da-da-da-da-da. And he goes, well, you know what? They're right. They're right.

That's exactly what we need to do. That's right. Right. They're right. That's exactly what we need to do. That's right. He would, you know, give give your opponent something once in a while. It shows a little bit of grace, but that answer, no grace, not a lot of grace. They're not. No, no. Well, it's because, you know, when you're graceless, that's what it sounds like. And the reality of it is Ron Johnson knows he's in the battle of his political life. He's up against an individual who has also been elected statewide. So he's not a stranger to voters. He's got a record as well.

And this race in Wisconsin is competitive. Yes, six points down, but competitive. And I think what Ron Johnson showed last night was his vulnerabilities. In that moment. He could not just leave it at. Yeah, he's a good family man. His great parents. And that's that's something that's good for the state. The lesson of our smart brevity book. Just stop. Just stop. If you say something graceful, then just stop. It's OK. That's that's the only way that you're going to reach those voters who want to be reached.

Something we talk a lot about on Axios is normal America, the America that is not obsessed with Twitter, the America that is not entrenched, that is not shouting each other. And you're going to reach them in a debate like this. I really think people are overlearning the lesson from Donald Trump. So many people think that Republicans thought Reagan's talents were transferable. They weren't. Democrats thought Obama's talents were transferable. They weren't. And here you have Trump, who is graceless, who was angry as a public figure, can never stop, can never be nice. I think Republicans are going to be taught a very difficult lesson over the next four to six years, that for whatever reason, people were fine with Donald Trump being a jerk.

But just as we're seeing in the law, gravity, a sense of gravity is returning. And I think political gravity will return, too. We will get back to a day where politicians are not going to be, not soon enough, but politicians will not be rewarded for being jerks. I'm a little bit more with Miko on this. I think it's broken. I think it's a little bit more broken. It is broken right now.

Short-term pessimism, mid-term to long-term optimism. And here's why. Look at any poll. People want Washington to work. People want their politicians to be term optimism. And here's why. Look at any poll. People want Washington to work. People want their politicians to be graceful, sane. I'm not sure they do. They do. They do. Don't get caught inside. I agree with you. It's going to be a ways. It'll be a way to wash out. Here's the deal. Generations. But to both your, and this is why I'm siding more and more with my friend Mika over here, is at the end

of the day, how long... Talk about working the ref. Dude, I'm not crazy. I know the power center at this table. What are you talking about? But here's the deal. How long does that take? How much time do we have?

What happens in the meantime? What happens in the meantime? And what happens in the meantime? The cancer spreads. What else grows out of that while we're waiting for everyone to find their grace? Look down ballot. Crazy town. You just dress it up and it sounds better and it looks better, but it's still graceless and it's still going down that road that you're talking about that makes it harder to recover.

I'm glad you brought up Arizona because I looked at an Arizona poll yesterday. Something like 77 percent of Arizonans in a recent poll want to elect leaders who want to compromise. And an overwhelming majority trust the election, the election that was had. They trust the system. What do they want to compromise on? Disinformation? Well, can I answer? Yes, please. I would love to. I'd like to finish the thought. Kerry Lake will win in a void. If you're running against somebody that won't debate you, if you're running against somebody who won't go out there, if you're running against somebody who

is scared of their own shadow politically, then you cede it to Carrie Lake. And let me tell you, the one thing I found out, I said it yesterday, Carrie Lake, from what I understand, is everywhere. She's knocking on doors. She's going to events. She's talking to people all over the state of Arizona. And I can't tell you how many times when I meet people, shake their hands, talk to them, talk to them, that I'll come up to me, the Rotarians, and say, you know, everybody says you're crazy. Everybody says you're too conservative. Everybody says you're a right wing freak. You're normal. I'll vote for you.

And it's that meeting. It's what Carrie Lake is doing that her opponent is not doing. We vote for humans. And you have to make that connection. One other takeaway from these debates that we've been watching, and we have our Herschel Walker, Senator Warnock debate coming up. It's harder and harder to imagine Mitch McConnell's majority leader with these senators. Mitch McConnell can't imagine being majority leader with these senators senators and uh mitch mcconnell can't imagine yeah being majority

leader with these senators you're right uh and herschel walker who is a great football player but is turning out can you imagine him in a debate that's uh that's tonight we're gonna be watching yeah we got a one-hour debate in savannah tonight guys rafael warnock who of course is a senior pastor at ebenezer baptist church an orator, and Herschel Walker. We'll see if he tells the story about the pregnant cows again. Maybe he'll be eat up some time by doing that. But we talk about managing expectations, Joe, with SEC football coaches, where Bear Bryant would say we've got no chance against Little Sisters of the Poor this week.

Herschel Walker managing expectations himself, saying, quote, I'm not that smart, and Rafael Warnock is going to embarrass me at this debate. Those are the words of Herschel Walker. Expectations management. And Jonathan Lemire pointed out I'm way too early. He has all these professional debate coaches, including presidential level debate coaches. Yeah. But, you know, there's another expectations game that we've seen unfold, Willie, over the past couple of days that I think and I think you're right. I mean, I think it's smart for Herschel Walker to do that. Smart for his advisers to tell him to do that if that's what they did.

But in Pennsylvania, we saw Dasha Burns. Great report on Fetterman. We saw him reading the closed captions. He's constantly being made fun of by Dr. Oz because of a physical ailment. And I think the expectations game there going into a debate that Fetterman's own people, from what I understand, are very concerned about. I think the expectations game is going to break the other way in Fetterman's favor suspect he'll he'll perform much better than people expect. Well, you're right. We got past this moment. The campaign got past this moment where

the public has now seen how he operates and how he processes those questions. So it won't be as shocking and surprising when it happens during the debate.