Morning Joe - Morning Joe 10/21/22

Episode Date: October 21, 2022

The Morning Joe panel discusses the latest in politics, U.S. and world news and sports.

Let me say that I am now like one of those booster rockets that has fulfilled its function. And I will now be gently reentering the atmosphere and splashing down invisibly in some remote and obscure corner of the Pacific. And like Cincinnati, I am returning to my plant and I will be offering this government nothing but the most fervent support. Like Cincinnati. That was Boris Johnson six weeks ago giving his farewell speech. But he's back in the fold as a potential replacement for his replacement, Liz Truss, now that she has resigned. Liz, we hardly knew ye. That was quick. That was amazing. So back here in the States, it's been more than a week since the January 6th committee

voted to subpoena the former president. We're going to go through why Donald Trump has not been served yet and what's next with that. Meanwhile, the massive federal criminal investigation into the Capitol attack is in need of some serious funding. But there's not a lot of time to make that happen. We'll explain. Plus, President Biden responds to questions about his campaign calendar with just under three weeks to go until the midterms. There's a lot going on on this Friday, October 21st. It's good to have you all with us here on Morning Joe. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have former aide to the George W. Bush White House and State Department, Elise Jordan. She's an MSNBC political analyst. She's got more

of those focus groups. They're frightening. The host of way too early White House peer chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, and the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, and former chair of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, is with us this hour as well. Great to have you all. So Willie, you and I, we say all year that baseball is 162 games. People need to take a deep breath. I will say now, where we are right now with the Yankee-Houston series, Houston goes up 2-0, this is exactly why I believe we should get rid of the 87 wild-card teams that we throw into the playoffs and go old school. Because I think when you play 162 games, have fewer playoff matchups,

and play best of seven games. Because you look at the Red Sox last year, the bats were extraordinarily hot through the playoffs. It looked like they were going to the World Series. And they went cold. The Yankees haven't hit in two games. Guess what? That happens.

So you've got a best of seven series. Anything can happen. Yeah, the what? That happens. So you've got a best-of-seven series. Anything can happen. Yeah, the bats have gone cold. They've struck out 30 times in the first two games, 3-0, 30 times. It was close again last night. They lost 3-2 to the Astros in Houston. Severino made one bad pitch to Bregman, who hit a bomb to left field. A three-run home run, and that was all the scoring that the Astros needed, winning 3-2.

Here's the good news for Richard Haas and other Yankee fans. We now move home with the top of the rotation. So we started this series because of how long the last series went without a day off with the bottom of the rotation. Now we get Garrett Cole tomorrow at home. Then we get Nestor Cortez in game four. So, would have loved to have stolen one in Houston, of course, especially last night in that tight game when Judge hit one to the wall

in the eighth inning that might have given the Yankees the lead. But we didn't. So, down 2-0, still in it with our best pitchers waiting in the Bronx this weekend. Well, you know, I always remember in growing up, suffering with the Atlanta Braves and their 100-loss seasons, I always remember us winning in 95. Then in 96, going into the Bronx, winning the first two games and going up 2-0. And then I think it was Furman Bishop, the legendary writer in Atlanta, who said, forget about comparing this team to this Yankees.

I mean, the way these guys are playing, they should be compared to the 27 Yankees. The Braves then, as you know, went all Braves on us and lost the next four games and didn't win a World Series again for years. But again, seven game series, just far different. It is far different. And this is why you earn the right to play in these seven game series with your regular season. I do remember, yes, Mark Wohler's hanging that slider to Jim Leyritz, turning the hinge of history toward a Yankee dynasty. I know that's painful, but hope springs eternal. We remain hopeful that we can. We've got our best guys on the mound this weekend.

We're home. The Bronx is going to be rocking. So the Yankees are still going to do it. And we're about to start the show in earnest. But Jonathan, would you like to say anything nasty about the Yankees, anything positive about Al Qaeda? Want to say anything about the 2004 ALCS? Yeah, I mean, I could go any of those places.

The anniversary of the ALCS, Joe, was yesterday. Of course, the Red Sox complete their comeback, something we will always be grateful for. I'll just read the back page of the Daily News. Too short, big guy, noting that judges attempt to tie the game with that home run. Fell just a few feet short. Apparently, the stats showed it would have been a home run in exactly one park across baseball. That park, of course, being Yankee Stadium.

But to be clear, this is not a series as far from over. Richard Haas, the Astros, what they did, they held serve. They had to win those games. Now the Yankees come home. They've got their best two pitchers on the mound, but they've got to start hitting. It's 162 game season. As Joe said, it's about to become a one or two game season for the Yankees come home. They've got their best two pitchers on the mound, but they've got to start hitting. It's 162 game season. As Joe said, it's about to become a one or two game season for the Yankees. So a lot of pressure, a lot of. But this is why this is why Mr. Cole is where he is. He's done it twice. He has to do it a third time and then maybe a fourth.

Yeah. Yeah. I think there's another game, too. I think Phillies and the Padres are playing in the national league. OK, they played. I'm not sure where they are in that. But anyway, here we go. We're following a number of legal developments surrounding the investigations into the January 6th attack on the Capitol, as well as Donald Trump's effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The January 6th Select Committee last week voted to unanimously subpoena Trump for documents and testimony related to the insurrection. And we're still waiting for that subpoena to be formally delivered. It was initially expected earlier this week. And while the exact timing of the subpoena is still unclear,

the Washington Post reported yesterday that it will come by the end of the week. And while the exact timing of the subpoena is still unclear, The Washington Post reported yesterday that it will come by the end of the week. So that could be sometime today. In Fulton County, Georgia, the investigation of potential 2020 election interference at federal appeals court has ruled against Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, saying he must testify before the grand jury about phone calls he made to top election officials in Georgia amid complaints from then President Donald Trump that there had been widespread voter fraud. part of Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis's criminal investigation into possible election interference in the state because he made them in his capacity as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time. In a unanimous ruling Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed with Graham's argument. And I will say, Mika, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed with Graham's argument. And I will say, Mika, the 11th Circuit, as we were explaining a few weeks ago when we were talking about special master appeal, very conservative, very conservative circuit.

It's also a no nonsense circuit. And on issues like this, they're going to rule this way most of the time. And if the 11th Circuit is there, then you're going to see the Supreme Court doing what the Supreme Court has done time and again. Bunny, you should mention that. On a lot of these issues and just sort of swatted them away. They are not, you know, Donald Trump may think it's his 11th Circuit and it's his Supreme Court, Willie, time and time again, federal judges disabuse him of that notion that, yes, they're they're very ideological. They're very ideological on guns. They're very ideological on abortion. They've had these worldviews like from the time they were in law school. It's not like they picked him up when Donald Trump became president. But these these questions about democracy, these questions about executive privilege, these questions about abuse by Donald Trump, they've been pretty unanimous.

And here they're being very clear to Lindsey Graham and the 11th Circuit. The Supreme Court will almost like almost positively follow. Lindsey's been trying to get out of testifying and the 11th Circuit's like, no go. South Carolina senator, you called the Georgia secretary of state. You asked him if he could throw out ballots or find other ballots. You're going to testify. And and so it's one more example. And we also had that yesterday in the Supreme Court. Yes. Senator Graham's argument that he was just serving his capacity as judiciary

chairman. He's just checking in on the votes. He's holding up so well so far. You mentioned the Supreme Court yesterday. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has denied an emergency request from a group of Wisconsin taxpayers to block the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness program. The order yesterday comes after the Brown County Taxpayers Association urged the court to rule that the president's nationwide debt cancellation plan illegally bypasses the spending powers of Congress. Barrett, who handles emergency matters arising from Wisconsin, acted alone in denying the request and did not address the full court. She also did not provide an explanation for rejecting that request. So, Joe, here you have Justice Barrett, who has been in some ways, you know, to progressives and to Democrats, someone that they've objected to and who they didn't want to see on the court standing up and saying, no, actually, he can, the president of the United

States, go through with this, rejecting partisanship, at least in this case. Yeah, well, and Michael, still in quite a few cases, again, nobody should be shocked that these justices, these Federalist Society justices are very conservative on ideological issues. Now, sometimes they surprise. Sometimes you have somebody like Gorsuch who has, I would say, a widely conservative, I would say a wildly expansive view of the meaning of sex when it comes to equal protection. And he took that to sexual preferences and revolutionized LBGTQ rights a year or two ago. But in these cases, it's kind of like cases that would flow out of the Nixon tapes case back in 74. In these cases involving Trump's bogus claims on the rigging of elections or this special masters case, our Trump trying to claim executive privilege,

the 11th Circuit, again, extraordinarily conservative circuit in the United States Supreme Court time and again is like, now get out of out of here. Don't even bother us with this. And yesterday, that's exactly what Amy Coney Barrett did. Yeah, I think the big distinction for me is these cases revolve around process as much as they do the substance of the question of law that's coming before the court. So when you're looking at the 11th Circuit, when you're looking at a decision like Amy Comey Barrett's, it is one that is consistent with how they view the process. And they view it conservatively. Certainly, if it's a political

question, they're going to more or less reject it. But by and large, what you're seeing here is the 11th Circuit at every turn saying, yeah, I hear what you're saying. But this process is consistent with the constitutional principle, et cetera. And I think that's something that a lot of particularly folks in Trump world sort of discounted. They thought it would just be, you know, all about the red meat and that that would be the thing that would get their judges to bite on these cases and give them what they wanted. And what these constitutionally consistent, constitutionally conservative judges said was, yeah, I like the meat, but I'm sorry you can't serve it here. It's just not something that we're going to buy because it is not consistent with the underlying constitutional requirements, process requirements that are also very much a part of what comes before us.

And so, you know, I think we'll see more of this, Joe. And, you know, right now, you know, a lot of conservatives are scratching their head going, well, wait a minute. I thought you guys were with us. And it's like, well, when you get the right case where you don't run into a constitutional wall, sure. But, you know, process wall. But right now that seems to be where the court's landing. Well, and at least just a couple of days ago, I mean, over the past couple of weeks, I've been noticing an uptick in publications, conservative publications that I read from people that I've respected in the past and I respect a lot of the other things they write about. But suddenly talking about impeach Joe Biden, he's a lawless president. Look what he did with the student loan program.

It's lawless. The get rid he must. Our Constitution is at risk. And how dare he do this? And how dare people ever say that Donald Trump was a risk to the Constitution when he's doing this? And then Amy Coney Barrett, you know, then Amy Coney Barrett goes, well, yeah, we're not going to even take this case.

So the idea that they, and I mean, I remember saying at the time to one of them said, well, why don't you go through the process? And if the Supreme Court rules that it's unconstitutional, you don't have to impeach a president just to overturn the law. That's really how it works, unless you just want to blow everything up, which is, of course, what apparently they want to do. They want to scream and shout impeach like they're owning the libs because they somehow think that something that's now been deemed constitutional is as bad as Donald Trump actually being part of a conspiracy to commit sedition against the United States government. I'm afraid I'm afraid this may be a preview of what we see in Kevin McCarthy's majority.

It's going to depend on how big of a majority. Democrats have to hope that it's going to be pretty narrow. It just makes my head hurt to think of the idea of impeaching presidents over giving away money to the American public. If that if that's the new standard. Wow. We give away free money all the time. The nastiness of the fight that we're going to see, though, coming up, the retribution against Democrats for impeaching Donald Trump twice,

no matter what their grounds are, as we all know that what happened was very valid. Donald Trump tried to start an insurrection. He tried to use American foreign policy dollars to benefit his own political fortunes. Pretty valid. That's not going to really be that frame of logic isn't going to be what guides the next steps going forward from the Republican majority that is probably going to arise after these November elections. So we have much more on this and also how the midterms are shaping up and Elise's focus groups coming up in just a few minutes. But right now we go to the UK. The race is on to find the next British prime minister again. Again? Again. They've done this so many times in the last couple of weeks. I mean, a lot. The ruling conservative party says by the end of next Friday, its members will have voted on a replacement for Liz Truss, who announced her resignation yesterday after a tumultuous six weeks in office. Let's bring in Sky News anchor and NBC News contributor Wilfred Frost with the very latest on this. Wilfred, good morning.

Good morning to you. Thanks for having me. So where does it go from here? And why is Boris Johnson's name even back in the mix at this point? Is that possible? It's definitely possible. So as you were outlining there, we now have a much more pacey leadership election than the one we had over the summer that selected Liz Truss. That one took about seven weeks. This one will take seven days from now. We'll know who the next prime minister is by next Friday, possibly sooner than that, as soon as Monday. And part of the process of speeding that up is they've massively increased the bar to get on the initial shortlist. You now need 100 MPs to put your name forward of a total of about 360 Conservative MPs. And then it will go to the party membership, about 200,000 party members

across the country. The very fact that it is even going to party membership again, over the last week or two, people were wondering if the party wanted a unity candidate, they'd leave it just to the MPs. But the fact that it is going to party members is why Boris Johnson's name is suddenly back in the frame. His issue will be getting that first 100 MPs to nominate him to get on the shortlist. If he does, he'll probably become the favourite. If he doesn't, then at the moment, the betting markets suggest Rishi Sunak is favourite. He came second to Liz Truss over the summer and was previously Boris Johnson's finance minister, as you'll remember. Richard Haass, President of

Council of Foreign Relations. Richard Haass, let's bring you in for the next question. But first, I want to ask you a question. So, well, let me just put it this way. I've spent my entire adult life telling people that everything was going to be OK. We're a system of checks and balances. Democrats are going to counterbalance. Republicans are going to counterbalance Democrats. And I've said the same thing about the British system, that it is resilient. It's strong.

It's it's made it through a thousand years. It will resilient. It's strong. It's it's made it through a thousand. It will continue. Having a hard time saying that today. It's absolute chaos. And it has been. It has been chaos. Have been a series of self-inflicted wounds over the past five, six years. So what is the current state of Britain politically is seen from the rest of the world? And what's their balance sheet look like? Well, if they were a share of stock, Joe, called United Kingdom Inc., it would have suffered something of a bear market. I think it goes back in part to the Brexit vote, which is still a head shaker, I would argue. And then you've had this fast, pacey, I think was the word we heard,

change of prime ministers and chancellors of the exchequer. And the whole basis for governing is increasingly not, it's just not working. And it's almost that simple. And the policies being promoted were so questionable in every way. They just weren't serious policies. And it's part of the problem. It's in some ways the structural weakness, Joe, I don't know if you agree with me here, of parliamentary party systems. In our system, for all its flaws, at least in principle, you have checks and balances. In a parliamentary system, you don't. The majority party has essentially all the power. The minority party can ask questions in question time.

It can boo and hiss. But all the power is with the majority. And that works when the majority either has checks and balances within it or has responsible leaders and followers. And what we've seen in the last few years is how the British system totally breaks down when the majority party is no longer serious or disciplined or well-led. And there is no check and balance. Yeah, you know, Wilfred, during the Trump era, we figured out in America, a lot of us grew concerned about the fact that we depend too much on the goodwill and the patriotism of the president. So there are a lot of assumed norms that Donald Trump, in my opinion, not yours as a newsman, but Donald Trump

burst through and people were talking about reforms just from looking from the United States at a country I love and have always loved. It seems the real failing here has been that Liz Truss was elected by, you know, party activists, maybe less than 1 percent of Britain. Are the Tories going to change that? Are they going to at least have members of parliament make this decision? So at least there will be some check to make sure that the person that's running the party and the government is competent? Well, by the way, you're absolutely right. And what happened here, essentially, we had the primary after the general election, and it was the primary that decided who was the prime minister. As to whether they're going to change it to a greater focus on the MPs, at the margin they have this time around, because it still ends up with the party members this time, albeit, as we said, they've upped that initial threshold. So there's a bit more of a say for the MPs relative to the party members. I just quickly say, I mean, I totally agree with Richard's framing of things. There's very little that we can defend right now of our parliamentary system. But oddly, if we go back to the start of the summer,

as embarrassing and drawn out as the process was to remove Boris Johnson from office, over the summer, I did find myself saying to some of my American friends, well, oddly, you know, the mood of the country changed and the elected representatives in Parliament decided to reflect that and change the leader, even though we were in the middle of a Parliament where the government had a big majority. We could, in fact, make that change because broadly the mood of the country change. Now, clearly, the fact that we're having to do that again undermines the positive spin on that aspect of our constitution. And if it leads to a return of the person removed only two months ago, it obliterates it. But I do think there's two sides to it. The positive spin on our constitutional system at the moment is very much de minimis compared to the negative side. But that's how we got to where we are. Now, there is one thing that can solve this all, of course. The political chaos is currently engulfing the entire country, but it is centred

in one party. And while a general election is the one thing that's still uniting that Conservative Party to try and hold on for now, There will be a general election at some point, at least by January 2025. And that will give people a mandate again, whichever way that goes. Until then, it's very hard to see unity and stability. All right, Wilfred Frost, thank you very much for your insight this morning. We appreciate it. And still ahead on Morning Joe, the Justice Department says it needs more money in order to continue the investigation into the January 6th attack on the Capitol. And time is running out. We'll have that new reporting.

Plus, a Democratic candidate running for governor of Oklahoma was mocked for saying the state has a higher crime rate than New York and California. They laughed at her. The thing is. The moderator was like, well, we're going. They laughed at her. The thing is... The moderator was like, well, we're going to have to check that. The audience laughed. The governor laughed. The challenger was a bully and way of describing her. So how did that turn out?

Turns out she was right. So we'll have that story for you. We'll hear also from Pennsylvania voters on the issue of crime and what they had to say about the candidates for Senate, John Betterman and Mehmet Oz, Elise Jordan's focus group is ahead. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. it's just about 30 past the hour and the sun has yet to come up over washington but a lot of people are going into work right now going into into work. Joining us now, speaking of, the co-founder of Axios, Mike Allen. Hey, Mike.

How are you? Good morning. Good morning. Mike, hold on. Wait a minute. And it's not just a good morning. It is a happy Friday. There you go.

Okay. All right. I think he forgot. He did forget. It's Friday, everybody. You know what? You can't forget that. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. He's a New York Yankees. You know, I can't forget that. He's a New York Yankees newsletters. He had an off day or two.

But he's going to be ready. He's going to be ready. So my every day is a good day in Axios land. Exactly. Why don't you why don't you tell us what the one thing that you're really looking at right now, a growing concern, not just for Democrats at the top of the ticket, but some real down ballot concerns. No, that's exactly right, Joe Mika. We're seeing something that we haven't seen in all my years of covering politics way back to the Richmond Times dispatch. And that is we're seeing yard signs for secretary of state races. And it's because there's a sudden focus on all these down ballot racist secretary of state, state legislatures, state Supreme Court in North Carolina. And, of course, why this matters is future elections that after 2020, we suddenly see the power of these offices that got very little attention.

And Joe Mika, look at what Mike Bloomberg is doing. So he's spending $60 million, six zero million this year. His team says he'll probably be the largest Democratic donor. It's getting a lot less attention this year. But here's why. It's state based spending. So he and his every town for gun safety spending big on these races in the states. Look at a legislature suddenly will be in charge of post row legislation. And Joe, the kind of issues that are getting attention this year, governors and their ability to veto post-Roe legislation.

All of that is factored into this state-based giving by big Dems, including Michael Bloomberg. Hey, Mike, it's Michael Steele, buddy. Good to see you, man. Happy Friday to you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really take to heart your comments because it tells me again how Democrats are day late and five terms short to the dance. The basis of the success in 2010 was not picking up 63 House seats. individual and activist was the race is very much, as you said, it's at the at the base level, state legislative races, county executive races, mayor races, governor's races. We picked up almost 800 state legislative races across the country, which fuel the energy to get 63 House seats, 12 governorships, et cetera. And it's amazing to me that the Democrats are just now figuring out that the

play is, oh, let's put some resources behind these state legislative races and offices because they're the ones who are going to set in motion the legislative agenda, not just for the state, but federally as well. That's right. Our shorthand over the years for the importance of state legislature, state houses was, well, they determine redistricting and thence house lines. But you're right. Republicans, as long as I've been covering politics, focusing on school board, smaller races. But now these races are seen in a total different light. So the ACLU actually has

new reporting from Alexi McCammon showing that the ACLU spending big on secretary of state races, legislative races, because of course that is now a proxy for a voting rights issue and therefore a civil rights issue. So, Michael, let me follow up with you on here, because this is so so frustrating to me is I hear Democrats and I hear progressives all the time. It doesn't matter what it doesn't matter what the issue is if it's redistricting. Right. Well, Democrats won 60 percent of the votes in Wisconsin state legislative races, but they only have 40 percent of the seats. I'm generalizing. Right. Are in Wisconsin. They don't like the jury instructions that were read in Kyle Rittenhouse's jury. They don't like abortion laws, whether it's in Wisconsin or Texas or Florida. And they sit there and they scream and yell about American democracy

and how broken American democracy is. And it's not like Jesus is looking down from above saying, this shall be what juries will read. I mean, this is because Democrats lost a thousand state legislative seats between 2010 and 2018. They didn't pay attention. They lost the races. They lost the right to redistrict. They lost the right to draft jury instructions and state legislatures. They lost the right to make abortion law. So now they're 10 year old girls. I'm not blaming Democrats for Republicans retrograde laws on abortion. But if you're

trying to figure out like I am, how Ohio forces 10 year old rape victims to flee the state. Well, it goes back to state legislatures. And I'm just wondering when Democrats are going to figure out this isn't a flaw in American democracy. This is a flaw in their strategy. They need to start actually paying attention to state legislative races. That's fundamentally true. Just real quick. And then, Mike, I'll throw it back to you, buddy. You're absolutely right about that. And it's something that, again, you know, I figured it out as national chairman that the strength and growth was where the grassroots were growing. Right. And those races would have an upward push on the political process. So if you want to be able to look at that, you know, people complain about redistricting. Well, they you know, they're drawing the lines. Well, who's drawing the lines? The state legislature is drawing the lines. And so if I'm targeting state legislatures, guess what? I'm also targeting The ability to draw the lines.

And so, you know, you're complaining about if you complain about, well, you know, the kinds of judges. Well, who gets to decide who those judges are going to be? Well, state legislatures contribute to that by drawing the lines for congressional races and Senate and getting senators elected statewide that will have a say in that. So you have to look at it holistically. Don't you think, Mike, when you're trying to calculate your future prospects, you've got to look at where your strength is. And for a long time, Republicans, we've always said our strength lies with our grassroots. We grow that from the bottom up.

It will push upward the power that we want, not this sort of downward approach that we've seen traditionally in politics. Now, it's a great point. And what I realized from Joe's comments were that the state legislatures, like the Supreme Court, now a generational deficit, that we're saying that these down ballot offices matter for future elections and who's set up for 2024. But Joe's point about the long tail of state legislatures, and we see it on the Supreme Court majority. That's not a couple of cycles. That's generations. Wow. Axios co-founder Mike Allen, thank you very much. He's the co-author of the new book, Smart Brevity, the power of saying more with less. I love it. are waking up now and understanding it's you just can't focus on national races you've got to start winning locally to actually start influencing what happens now three weeks to the midterms

coming up let's get the lightest from uh ukraine where mass evacuations continue in the south as both sides are gearing up for a battle over a key city, plus the efforts on Capitol Hill to lock in funding for Ukraine following recent comments from the top Republican in the House. Morning Joe is coming right back. Welcome back at 43 past the hour. The United States government says it has evidence Iran sent troops to Russian occupied territories in Ukraine to assist the Russians in launching drone attacks across the country. White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters Thursday that Iran sent those trainers to help Russian forces utilize the drones with, quote, better the lethality. Asked specifically how many Iranians are in Ukraine at this time. Kirby

didn't have a number, but said the number is small. Richard Haass, can you talk about the dynamic of Iran helping Russia and how that really complicates things on many levels? It shows, again, how dependent Russia is on help from the outside, how weak its own military is. But it's not good news because they're getting it here from Iran. They're working together on energy issues. Look, this is a pariah international, Mika. These are countries, Iran, Russia, North Korea and others, who simply are total pariahs. They don't want to change the world we live in.

They essentially want an alternative. And there seem to be no rules as if one needed it. This is yet another argument why it makes no sense to resurrect the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, because what it would do is remove the sanctions from Iran. They could do more of this sort of thing. They could do more of this sort of thing anywhere in the world. We think of Iran as a regional country, and obviously it is for the most part. But also in this day and age, even medium-sized countries can have global reach. Iran tired out years ago terrorism attacks in Argentina. Now they're doing this, helping Russia. Iran has become a real problem. And I would think we've got to deal with the nuclear side of Iran. But we've also got to basically keep them under sanctions for a long, long time because they are not accepting any limits on what they can do.

So, Richard, on Ukraine, a rift in the Republican Party burst into view this week when we heard from GOP House Leader McCarthy saying that if the Republicans take control of the House in November, that there won't be a blank check anymore for Ukraine. This was a pushback from other Republicans, including those close to Senate Leader McConnell. And the White House is wary of this and suggesting that they might be behind a significant lame duck package that could be passed in December to prevent this if the GOP does take control. Give us your analysis of this debate and also just how worrisome this could be. The White House doesn't think that the GOP would, if they take control, completely stop funding, but the packages would be smaller and slower.

What impact could that have? I think it would be disastrous. Now, what you have are a classic isolationists on the Republican side who basically said, why are we spending over there? Let's spend it all at home, which is nonsense. Obviously, you can and should do both. We did it through most of our modern history. And then you've also got the fellow travelers with Putin. And the question is whether the Republicans will come out. I think the idea of getting a big package through now makes some sense just for that reason. But a big package will only buy you, what, six months at that. And this would really pull the thread on the fabric of NATO. And so if you do have Republicans reducing significantly packages for Ukraine, does anyone think that wouldn't have ripple effects in Europe?

Does anyone think that the Italians and the Germans and others would notice? What this crisis has once again reminded us all and shown is that things happen with American leadership. Without it, they simply don't happen. We can't act unilaterally. This has been a collective effort, but none of this collective effort would have happened without us taking the lead, not simply with our voice, but in this case, with our wallets and with all the military equipment. If Europeans basically see that we're not going to last, this would have tremendous implications for what happens in Ukraine. Putin would be encouraged. This will reinforce his view is that time is on his side. Plus, around the world, what do we think the South Koreans would think? Or Japan or Taiwan or American allies, or the Saudis even, whatever.

This would basically be a message, yet again, that America cannot be counted on, that it's dangerous to put your security in American hands, because sooner rather than later, they're going to turn on you. They're going to change their policy. So what's at stake is not simply what's going on in Europe, which is enormous, the security implications of Ukraine pushing back against Russia, the message that you can't take territory by force. But I actually think we are going to put a lot on the line. It's already there because of Trump. People didn't know if the Trump years were the aberration or the new norm.

What's so dangerous about what McCarthy was talking about the other day, it'll send the message that the four years of Trumpism, rather than being an aberration, we're actually a harboring of what's to come, of an America that's no longer consistent and not be counted on. I don't mean to be melodramatic, but the stakes here are enormous for how the United States is perceived around the world. Couldn't agree more. Richard Haass, thank you very much. And still ahead on Morning Joe, the Justice Department has asked a federal judge to give Steve Bannon six months in prison over his refusal to comply with a subpoena from the January 6th Select Committee. We'll have the latest ahead of today's sentencing. That's next on Morning Joe. Oh, beautiful shot of Capitol Hill at 53 past the hour.

The Justice Department says it needs $34 million in funding to continue its massive investigation into the January 6th Capitol attack. Better get it fast. Yeah, they need it. It wants the money included in a spending bill that needs to pass in December because of concerns Republicans would cut off funding next year if they win back the House in the midterm elections. The Justice Department has called the Capitol attack the most wide ranging investigation in its history, with more than 870 arrests so far. But the DOJ says its work is far from over, as there are still hundreds of rioters who have not yet been arrested. Joining us now on NBC News, justice reporter Ryan Riley and state attorney for Palm

Beach County, Florida, Dave Ehrenberg. So Ryan, let's start with your reporting here and also start with the fact that as you show us every day, this investigation continues to go on. They continue to find more rioters, bring them to justice. And you're talking about the possibility of this having to get shut out if they run out of money. How dire is the situation for the DOJ? Well, essentially, right now, you know, they've been working on borrowed time because a lot of these prosecutors who are helping this case are basically lent out from local U.S. attorney's offices. So federal prosecutor's offices across the country have volunteered personnel to be a part of this investigation. A lot of that has been eased a little bit, in fact, by some of the COVID protocols that we've seen over the past several years.

Because a lot of these cases are working through the phone system where prosecutors can call in. They'll have to fly in and out often for the in-person hearings when these cases come about. But basically, you have a situation where the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. is being aided by these federal prosecutors' offices all across the country. And it's not something that is really set up for the long term. And I think that that's how you really have to think of this as a long term project, because, you know, you can basically think of this as a five year long span investigation. It will run even beyond that. But five years is essentially when you have to bring most of these these charges by. And just based upon the numbers of how many people we know went into the U.S. Capitol, how many people we know attacked police on January 6th.

And you look at how many cases are being brought on a weekly basis, the numbers just don't really match up. You know, you have about four arrests per week at this point, but you have a total spectrum of basically almost 3,000 people who either entered the Capitol or attacked officers on January 6th. And right now, when we're, you know, a little over 870, and you just, you know, you sort of bump that out a little bit and you're not going to get anywhere near that final number by the time sort of the statute of limitations begins approaching. the folks who are actually working these cases day to day about what is actually needed to bring this investigation home, because it really is overwhelming the court system. It's overwhelming the Justice Department. And they really do need just manpower, pure manpower to bring these cases to fruition. Yeah, the biggest investigation in DOJ history, they're saying. Dave Ehrenberg, time also of the essence, if Republicans take the House, that money is going to

vanish. Tell us, though, we hear $34 the House, that money is going to vanish. Tell us, though, we hear $34 million, what DOJ is saying they need. To someone who doesn't have the familiarity of the legal system that you do, they say, well, that's a lot of money. What's going on here? But explain to us how that money is spent and why it would be so important for an investigation like this. Yeah, Jonathan, he who controls the purse controls the agenda. And so it is important that the DOJ gets this money because this is an unprecedented investigation. It's on a massive scale. And so they need it. Yes, especially after we come out of the covid protocols, things are being done in person. There are witnesses to fly in. And so this costs a lot of money.

And I doubt that many undecided voters are going to cast their ballots on this funding issue. And so when or if the Democrats lose the House at the midterm elections, there's an urgency now to get this done before Congress turns into a pumpkin on January 3rd. And I think Speaker McCarthy, when that happens, is going to eliminate the January 6th committee and is not going to be in any rush to send money the DOJ's way. Remember, the Republican mantra is that the DOJ has become politicized. And so it's really important that this money gets there. Now, I still think that even if the money doesn't get there, that the DOJ investigation here will continue, the cases will continue. It's just that other priorities within the Department of Justice will have to be cut. And people around the country will feel the pinch because a lot of the prosecutors are coming from the district offices, not from main justice. So this needs to get done and fast. So now to this former Trump adviser, Steve Bannon, will be sentenced this morning

for contempt of Congress after refusing to comply with the subpoena from the House Select Committee. The Justice Department has asked the judge to sentence him to six months in prison and fine him $200,000. Bannon's lawyers argue he should only get probation. They have also asked that Bannon be allowed to remain free until his lawyers are able to appeal the sentence. I guess, Ryan, what can we expect of this sentencing today? And how important is the DOJ's sort of advice here? Yeah, I mean, you know, judges definitely take the Justice Department's recommendations into account. And essentially what DOJ argued here is that this is a continuation of the January 6th attack and that by flouting the committee so boldly, he's undercut Congress's investigative powers and really set back what the January 6th

committee can do. He also, you know, if we recall, he tried to come in with that last minute deal and say, hey, I will actually testify and cooperate. And, you know, that was basically trying to undermine the prosecution, essentially, is what DOJ says here. So, you know, I think that they're recognizing that if Steve Bannon only ends up doing perhaps a month behind bars, he can turn that around and come out of that right side up, right? He can do a podcast, he can call himself a political prisoner. But, you know, six months is serious time. That's not something to joke about. Six months behind bars is significant. So I think that that would show, would indicate potentially to the American public that this is something to be taken seriously and that you can't just sort of make a joke out of

congressional investigations. Yeah. And Dave Ehrenberg, knowing the players, is there any possibility that he doesn't do any time? No, Mika, I think it's very small based on who he is and what he has done. I think he is going to get closer to the six months than zero. You know, he could get technically under the law up to two years. But the sentencing guidelines say that someone in his situation gets a maximum of six months and the Department of Justice wants that six months. And he deserves it because of his behavior, his lack of remorse, his constant attacks on not just prosecutors, but also the judge. Of course, he's attacked the January 6th committee and democracy itself.

Steve Bannon has long said that he would go to jail for his beliefs. And now he's about to become the martyr he's always wanted to be. On the bright side for him, six months is plenty of time for him to write that manifesto I'm sure he wants to write. On the other hand, I'm not sure how many shirts that you're allowed to wear at the same time in prison. It's not going to be what he's used to. In prison, good point. No, it's not. State Attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Ehrenberg, thank you. And NBC News Justice Reporter Ryan Riley, thank you for your reporting this morning.