Morning Joe - Morning Joe 10/25/23

Episode Date: October 25, 2023

'Could be tremendously significant': Meadows granted immunity according to ABC News

You were talking before about Trump knowing that he had lost. And there was that Rose Garden moment after the Supreme Court decision. And he said to you, I don't want people to know I lost, right? He said that to Mark Meadows. I was standing catty corner to Mark Meadows. Mark Meadows and I were leaving the residence. We were at a Christmas reception. And then the president was going back to the residence from the Oval Office. So I was with Mark, stepped behind Mark. And this was a conversation

between the president and Mark Meadows. That was part of our interview with former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson almost exactly a month ago. Now, her former boss, Mark Meadows, may have flipped on the former president. Meanwhile, another attorney from Donald Trump's elite strike force legal team takes a plea deal in the Georgia election interference case. We have a lot to cover this morning on the legal cases tied to Donald Trump. Plus, we'll go through the ongoing Republican led chaos on Capitol Hill. Still no speaker. Mike Johnson of Louisiana is now the party's fourth nominee for speaker.

We'll tell you more about him and look at his chances of actually winning the gavel. And we'll have the latest out of the Middle East, where Israel continues to launch airstrikes on Gaza after rejecting a ceasefire call from the United Nations. A lot going on. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, October 25th. Good to have you all with us. Donald Trump's final White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, has reportedly been granted immunity in the federal election interference case against the former president. Sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News that Meadows has met with special counsel Jack Smith's team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury. In those conversations, Meadows reportedly shared that in the weeks following the 2020 election, he told then President Trump multiple times that allegations of significant voter fraud were baseless. He also reportedly admitted to investigators that Trump was being, quote, dishonest when he falsely claimed that he won the election in a speech just hours after the polls closed.

Despite allegedly saying those things behind closed doors, Meadows has repeatedly claimed in public the election was stolen, including in his 2021 memoir. But ABC News reports that when speaking with investigators, the former chief of staff conceded that even he doesn't believe some of the statements in his own book. Meadows reportedly has been granted immunity in the federal case. He still faces racketeering charges, though, in the Georgia election interference probe where he has pleaded not guilty. NBC News has not confirmed ABC's reporting on all of this. In a statement to NBC, Meadows' attorney writes, quote,

I told ABC their story is largely inaccurate. People will have to judge for themselves the decision to run it anyway. Let's bring in the host of way too early, White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delanian, former U.S. attorney and senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg, and the former lead investigator for the House January 6th Committee, Timothy Haifey. Good morning to you all. Timothy, I guess we should start with you as you're the lead investigator in all of this around January 6th for the committee that completed its work last year. How significant is this

development potentially, as reported by ABC News, an immunity deal for Mark Meadows? And remind our viewers, if you would, what he might be able to share about those days around the 6th and around the claims of a stolen election. Yeah, Willie, it's very significant. He is probably the person closest to former President Trump throughout the post-election period and all day on January 6th. You know, he's there for all the discussions about the election, all of the prongs of the multi-part plan to try to disrupt the joint session. And then, importantly, he's with President Trump all day on January 6th at the Ellipse and then in that dining room as the violence is unfolding at the Capitol.

And if he is now providing a thorough and detailed account of all of these interactions with the president, it could be tremendously significant for both Jack Smith and potentially for Fannie Willis. It's hard for me to imagine that a defendant cooperates in case one and doesn't then subsequently go on to cooperate in case two. Well, Jonathan Lemire, again, you wrote the book on January the 6th, everything leading up to January 6th. And let's again, we're we're assuming that the ABC ABC reporters have this right. They haven't retracted it at this point. They have multiple sources on this. And Donald Trump is known for some time. I mean, you've you've reported some time they've been very concerned about Mark Meadows, who went quiet and whose whose attorney has continued to say bland, generic things to reporters. But in this case, if ABC has this story right,

just how devastating is it to Donald Trump and and his claims of fraudulent election? Extraordinarily so. Let's just take a second to reiterate just how close Meadows was with Trump. When Donald Trump contracted covid in October, Mark Meadows rode in Marine One with him, accompanied him in the helicopter to Walter Reed, spent the night in former President Trump's hospital room when he was there at the hospital for a couple of days. He was undyingly loyal. And in those weeks after the election, as the West Wing began to hollow out, people were departing, staff departures. There was another COVID outbreak. Meadows remained there the entire time. And we know he was in the Oval Office repeatedly on January 6th, trying to get Trump's attention. Trump holed up in that private dining room just off of the Oval, watching

the highlights, if you will, on television. Meadows trying to get him to stop listening to Ivanka Trump and others. He was there throughout the process, throughout the efforts to try to overturn the 2020 election results. You know, he was privy to a lot of the memos being circulated. He was right there at the front lines. And Trump people I spoke to last night, you know, they, of course, pushed back on the ABC report. They pointed out the lawyer said it wasn't quite right. We'll see. But there's one thing. It's one thing if Jenna Ellis or Sidney Powell, who are these attorneys, are flipping in the Georgia case. The Trump team concerned but largely thinks that would be something they can get through.

Mark Meadows would be an entirely different story. Meadows, as we can see here, the latest to turn on Trump. He is someone who could have extraordinarily damaging testimony against the former president. And there's the headline, they're all turning on Trump. He is someone who could have extraordinarily damaging testimony against the former president. No, and there's a headline. They're all turning on Trump. Obviously, Ken Delaney and we have the Jenna Ellis story out of out of Georgia that we'll get to in a bit. I'm curious. So what you believe the impact of Mark Meadows turning on Donald Trump would be, and also your reaction to Meadows' attorneys. I don't know that I'd quite call it a non-denial denial. It may have been too clever by half. We've all seen people put statements out like that when they found one or two words weren't exactly right and then tried to dismiss the overall story.

But what's your take on all of it? That's a great assessment, Joe. As you can imagine, we've all at NBC News done some reporting behind the scenes on this. And the informed speculation about this denial is or the question is, is there some issue around the immunity question? Was there some imprecision in the ABC News report? There's a lot of different ways that a witness can get immunity. You can get what's known as a queen for a day, proffer immunity, use immunity. So there may be some inaccuracies there. But the gist of what Mark Meadows is telling investigators, no one is disputing that, including Donald Trump's lawyers are not publicly

disputing that. And just think of the impact before a jury of having one of Donald Trump's closest aides testify that he told the president he lost the election and that he'd seen nothing that would suggest that there are any fraud claims that could overturn the election. And yet Donald Trump believed he lost the election in order to prove these criminal claims against Mr. Trump. But it sure would be helpful for a jury if they could establish that. Juries are humans, after all. And it paints a larger picture of fraud. And this also underscores that people with lives and careers independent of Donald Trump are not going to go down for him. They're not going to face millions of dollars in legal bills and potential years in prison to protect Donald Trump. Maybe a few people who have worked for him for his whole life, who are in lower level jobs, have this kind of blind loyalty. We've seen that. But but not these these major Washington figures

or minor figures like a Jenna Ellis. They're just not willing to do it. And this stuff is really crumbling around Donald Trump. Well, you know, and I, Willie, this is sort of the Christmas story metaphor that I'm sure every great legal mind across America has been thinking. The BB gun, it's all a lot of fun until we put somebody's eyes out. And while they're running around playing, you know, following Trump, thinking, oh, look what he's saying. He's getting away with it. This is fun. We're getting to own the libs.

We're getting to own the press. Oh, my God. They really talk about a feeling of immunity. They felt like they had an immunity, not only from the law, but from the truth that they could say anything because this guy was president of the United States. He was lying every day and sending out lawyers to lie every day, say horrible things about federal judges, completely undermine the rule of law. or at least they thought in their mind they could, they thought they could lie their way out of a presidential election. And then they wake up and suddenly they see the charges are coming because it may have been a shock to some of these lawyers, but if you try to overturn an American election, well, law's coming after you.

We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. So we heard it from Jenna Ellis a couple of weeks ago. She said, listen, I'm not I don't have money. I don't have money like all these other people. I'm not going to sit here and blindly defend Donald Trump. He's a narcissist. He's crazy. I wouldn't even vote for him again. And so suddenly it's all fun and games until it's not. She decides that I'm sure family members around her said, you got to protect yourself. Stop lying for this man. Same thing with Mark Meadows. I'm not privy to anything that Mark and his family says, but what do you think, what do you think his wife

and children said to him? Really? Like you've been following this guy around for years. Are you going to follow him to prison? And as Ken Delaney said, that is, you know, it's one thing to be making shit up outside of a courtroom. It's quite another to walk into that courtroom and get five to 10 years. Yeah. I mean, this, in many ways, you use the right word, a game. It was a game to Rudy Giuliani. It was a game to Jenna Ellis. That was the right word. Game. Exactly. That was the right word. But it was. It was a game of relevance. Rudy Giuliani was suddenly important again. Cameras were following him and listening to him. And Jenna Ellis, now we know her name. Sidney Powell,

we knew her name. They got to be famous and they thought close to power. And again, we've said this a million times on this show. The idea that loyalty is a two way street with Donald Trump is so incredibly naive. It's staggering that these people thought they were going to get anything back from him when they need him, which is right now. And of course, he's running the other direction. So, Chuck Rosenberg, let me ask you first about the distinction between a plea deal, which is not for Mark Meadows, and an immunity deal. Why do you think that might be significant? And also, if Mark Meadows is cooperating with Jack Smith on this 2020 election case, do we also believe, or would it seem logical, that he's also cooperating in these

many other cases as well? Yeah, let me take the second question first, Willie, because Tim Hayfee alluded to that at the beginning of the show. It would be unusual for somebody to selectively cooperate. If, in fact, Mr. Meadows is cooperating on the January 6th case, logically he would cooperate in the Georgia State case. And oh, by the way, would also have a lot of really important and interesting and compelling information about the classified documents case being prosecuted federally in the Southern District of Florida. So typically, not always, but typically, if someone's cooperating on one case, they're cooperating across the board. And federal prosecutors, and Tim and I both served as federal prosecutors, would also require full, complete, and candid cooperation. We don't tend to cut cooperation deals in which the defendant or the bad guy or Mr. Meadows,

perhaps in this case, gets to pick and choose on what issues he cooperates. Let me talk about your first question. So the difference between a plea deal in which someone acknowledges their guilt, like Jenna Ellis did, and an immunity deal, as Mr. Meadows may have, if the ABC report is accurate, is that the second thing, an immunity deal, occurs when a defendant has important information for prosecutors that they need to prove their underlying case. They need a vector into the criminal conspiracy. And sometimes the best vectors into a criminal conspiracy, frankly, Willie, are other criminals. So normally, Mark Meadows wouldn't have to answer a question truthfully if that truthful answer would

incriminate him. He has a Fifth Amendment privilege. We all do if we've committed a crime. Most of us haven't. Mr. Meadows allegedly did. And so if prosecutors want to force him to compel him to divulge that information against his Fifth Amendment privilege, one way to do that is to immunize him. In other words, Mr. Meadows, you must tell us the truth because we are now promising not to prosecute you if you tell us the truth. Once they've given that immunity, Meadows is compelled. He must answer questions and he must do so honestly. If he doesn't, he violates an immunity agreement and can end up going to jail for a whole raft of problems.

So immunity deals give prosecutors vectors into criminal arrangements, into criminal conspiracies, and prosecutors use it as a tool to work up the chain. That's a great explanation and important distinction there as we follow this along. Joe, it's important to remember as well that we have in the January 6th committee, as Tim knows, had just a trove of text messages, emails, correspondence from Mark Meadows around January 6th and that day. They've got a whole bunch on him. And as we know from Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony

that was corroborated and also written in her book, it was her, a 24-year-old aide who was the adult in the room that day on January 6th as Mark Meadows sat and said, what do you want me to do? This is what the big guy wants. Right. We we also we also know that Mark Meadows just behaved in a very erratic way is for dumped, dumped a ton of documents on the committee, wrote a book, then started saying exactly opposite of what was in the documents that he gave to the committee, his text messages. Then he after Donald Trump said that everything that he wrote in his book was a lie, he said, yeah, it's a lie. You know, don't own the libs, own yourself. And so, yeah, it's a lie. Don't own the libs. Own yourself.

And so, yeah, it's it's it's it's it's going to be it's going to be fascinating to see where that testimony goes. But but there's no doubt that this is if ABC News report is right. We have no reason right now to believe that it's not. They have they are they're staying staying on it. This is going to be extraordinarily significant. We're going to talk about how extraordinarily significant that's that is, along with after this one minute break, Jenna Ellis, we're going to take you inside the Georgia courtroom where she had a tearful confession and helpfully let the judge know immediately that she was a Christian. We also we have so much other news. Of course, the chaos in Israel, the bombing in Gaza, of course, in Ukraine, fighting for their very existence.

American troops being attacked by Iranian proxies. All of this happening. Well, the House Republicans continue to allow five or six radical freaks to team up with Democrats. Let me say that again. The Republicans have allowed five or six radical freaks in the House to team up with the Democrats. They went, they walked over those five or six radical freaks, basically walked across the aisle and became Democrats for the purposes of vacating the chair of the speakership. And now here we are weeks later with Israel, Gaza, Ukraine, U.S. troops, all of this on fire. The specter of China and they can't even select a speaker. It's not hard, but they're making everything hard. And you know what? It hurts

Republicans. It hurts the institution. It hurts America. It hurts our allies across the globe. And more importantly, as Chairman McCaul said, it really tarnishes the U.S. reputation across the globe. And it makes Putin and Xi and Kim Jong-un happy because those Republicans are making the Communist Chinese Party's points for them. We'll be right back in one minute. My Lord. You know, Mika, five, five, what, five, six candidates. I don't know. But I got to say, in each one of their cases, though, in each one of their cases, in the words of the Rutles, all of those potential speakers created memories that will last a lunchtime. Yeah, maybe five minutes, all because of Trump. At best, it appears. We're going to get to the Republican farce playing out on Capitol Hill in just a moment. But first, Jenna Ellis is now the third

Trump associated lawyer and fourth co-defendant overall to take a plea deal in the Georgia election interference case. She was former President Trump's senior legal advisor from 2019 through the end of his term in January of 2021, his senior legal advisor, and yesterday pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings. In the frenetic pace of attempting to raise challenges to the election in several states, including Georgia, I failed to do my due diligence. I believe in and I value election integrity. If I knew then what I know now, I would have declined to represent Donald Trump in these post-election challenges. I look back on this whole experience with deep remorse. I have taken responsibility already

before the Colorado bar who censured me. And I now take responsibility before this court and apologize to the people of Georgia. Her deal requires that she serve five years of probation and testify at the trials of the other co-defendants. She will also need to provide documents and evidence to the attorney general's team. Candelanian, how important is what she has to offer? Her excuses seemed rather thin. It's not clear exactly what she brings to the table in terms of a witness, Mika,

but it's just another domino here. And you can see this pattern developing in this Georgia case where a lot of these defendants are looking at themselves and saying, what am I doing here? Why do I need to incur these massive legal bills and risk time in prison, especially when there's a deal on the table requiring no prison time? Interestingly, though, the prosecutor is requiring each of these defendants to pen a letter of apology to ago when Jenna Ellis, there were reports that she was asking Donald Trump to cover her legal bills and was not getting any relief in that department. And, you know, it made it pretty clear she doesn't have the money to pay for this legal defense. These lawyers, you know, a trial like this can cost as much as, you know, $7,000 a day for some of these folks. And they just don't have the money to do that. And Fannie Willis, the D.A., is cleverly offering these deals that allow these people, in many cases, to retain their law licenses if they comply with terms of the deal.

So they can go on with their lives and they can become witnesses against Donald Trump. Again, this case appears really to be firming up around Donald Trump. And so, Tim, let's go back to your experience, your expertise, your investigation with the January 6th committee here. Jenna Ellis could lead one to Rudy Giuliani, could she not? She was traveling, barnstorming the country with him. They were telling lies to state legislatures about what had happened in the 2020 election to try to get the legislatures to flip their votes in their states. How significant is this development with Jenna Ellis in terms of Rudy Giuliani and perhaps beyond? Yeah, the perhaps beyond, Willie, is the key.

Absolutely, Giuliani. She is part of a team and she's not just a foot soldier. She's put forth as a leader of that team. She goes repeatedly on television to spout these claims that she now admits were false. She goes to state legislatures. She authors this one page memo about the vice president's authority. It hasn't gotten as much attention as Eastman's because of the heft that he brings in terms of his reputation. But she is not just following directions. She is there shoulder to shoulder with Rudy Giuliani charting strategy. And look, she may have been and likely was in direct communication with the client, the client being President Trump. So she's potentially very significant if she had direct conversations with President Trump. She makes

it very difficult for him to rely on this potential defense that he's simply relying on advice of counsel. If the counsel is baseless, as Ellis is now admitting, as Powell has also admitted, then it undercuts a very significant potential defense for the former president. Jenna Ellis, not just part of a team, she was part of an elite strike force team, Chuck Rosenberg. And let's recall that she stood there with Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, the three of them at that infamous RNC news conference where Giuliani had the hair dripping down his face. And now we have Powell and Ellis both taking deals. So who else could look at? We know the Georgia case. There's more

than a dozen, nearly two dozen defendants there. We've now had several, four, four take a deal, three of them attorneys. Who else could you see? What dominoes would you perceive could fall next? And how worried should Trump be about this? Well, look, excuse me, people overwhelmingly, Jonathan, act in their self-interest. I mean, you see that over and over again in life. But let's talk about, you know, in the criminal environment, people overwhelmingly act in their self-interest. And so after you've been indicted, after you've been charged by a

grand jury, your options narrow. You can go to trial and face a risk being convicted and go into jail, or you can take a guilty plea. And right now, the district attorney in Fulton County is offering no jail plea agreements. And so between those two options, it's pretty clear what the better one is, not going to jail. And so in answer to your question, Jonathan, what should we expect to see? Will other dominoes fall? We should expect to see other dominoes falling. People will have to assess their own tolerance for risk. They'll have to weigh the risk of going to trial and being convicted and being incarcerated against the risk of taking a plea deal, cooperating, testifying,

and avoiding jail. Given those options, and you don't really have all that many other options, so far what you're seeing from Sidney Powell, from Chesborough, from Jenna Ellis, from others, is taking the no jail plea route. Should Mr. Trump be worried about it? Obviously, I mean, Ellis might be able to give you Giuliani. Giuliani might be able to give you others, although he'd probably be the worst witness ever in the history of the planet. But there will be other dominoes to fall as people make these risks and try to narrow their own exposure. Yeah, and narrow their own exposure, Mika, for a good reason. And the reason is that they're lying. They've been, everybody knew they were lying all along. Even their supporters knew they're lying. They've been everybody knew they were lying all along. Even their supporters knew they were lying. They they continued to lie, even as 63 federal courts

said they were lying, even as is Donald Trump called them Trump Supreme Court, even as the Supreme Court said they were lying, that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud, that there was no evidence of voter fraud that would overturn the election. Even Trump's Trumpiest, most loyal Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, wrote a concurrence in a Pennsylvania case saying, we understand there are not enough votes here to overturn any election. We're not going to overturn an election here, but we should have a good look at what a legislature should do, what a state Supreme Court should do,

and who election officials should follow. So that said, you know, it's not only that they're doing this to avoid legal fees. They're doing this to retain their law license. They're doing this because as a matter of law, they've been busted about 63, 64, 65 times by federal courts already for being liars. So they do the deal. So anybody out there going, oh, well,

they're only, and I've heard this, oh, the justice department's weaponized and they're only doing this because they don't want to be ruined because what these horrible prosecutors are doing to them, making them pay a lot of attorneys. No, no. They're they're doing this because they know they're lying and much better to walk free. If the truth can set you free, take that door. Keep your law license. Keep your freedom. And let Donald Trump continue this lie as long as he wants. But do it without them. And as the dominoes fall, that might be difficult for the former president, former U.S. attorney Chuck Rosenberg, NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney and former lead investigator for the January 6th Select Committee, Timothy Hafe. Thank you all very much for being on this morning with this big news we're covering.

Also now, the House is scheduled to reconvene at noon Eastern with Republican Congressman Mike Johnson intending to seek a full floor vote after last night becoming his party's latest nominee for House speaker. The Louisiana lawmaker was nominated just hours after majority whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota dropped out. Emmer had defeated Johnson and several other candidates earlier in the day, but withdrew from the race when it became clear he didn't have enough support to win a floor vote. On social media yesterday, former President Trump worked hard to torpedo Emmer's bid. As for Congressman Johnson, he is now the fourth nominee for speaker since Kevin McCarthy's ouster three weeks ago. He currently serves as the GOP conference vice chair. Let's bring in founder of the conservative website, the bulwark, Charlie Sykes and NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Serkin and MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle has joined us at the table as well. No leaving, Mike. OK, as well.

No, he's no, he's going to get up and just walk away. I probably get maybe I should get him talking first. Joe, how long does this go on? I mean, you you said very eloquently at the top of the show, except for the bad word you used that this is, you know, impacting. I did. I did not say Diamondbacks. I mean, check the tape. I never said it was way too early. You know better. But you did make a really good point that this is absolutely impacting our national security and respect around the world at a time when things are extremely dangerous. take the word of Chairman McCaul and other Republicans who, Mike Barnicle, come out and say our party's a joke. Yesterday, last night, somebody said we need to just turn this over to the Democrats. Maybe they can run it better than we can. Of course, that will not happen. But you do wonder at what point, as American soldiers are under fire from Iranian proxies, as Israel is fighting for their very life after just

savage terror attacks of a few Sundays ago. As you see what's happening in Ukraine, you see President Xi and others celebrating the dysfunction in Washington, D.C., and our enemies and the unaligned who are trying to figure out whether they come more away or they go China. They look at what Republicans are doing in the House of Representatives. They look at Donald Trump and they go, man, I don't know that we can count on America anymore. And the Republicans know this is happening.

And as Willie said yesterday, the five or six people don't mind that the American reputation is being tarnished across the globe. Again, according to Chairman McCaul and other Republicans, they don't care because their TikTok views will go up and they'll get $25 donations from across America. Yeah. You know, Joe, this is a whole new definition of dangerous self-absorption on the part of a handful of Republicans in the House. And you're absolutely right. I mean, you don't have to go back that far in history, maybe a year, maybe two years, to figure out that in foreign capitals around the world, both friend and foe, incidentally,

they knew what America was. They knew what America stood for. They knew what America would do because we're fairly predictive in what we would do to defend liberty all over the world the House of Representatives who have taken our constitutional government, turned it upside down to the point where we are in business, apparently, according to the Republicans, not to govern. We're in business to go send people to Washington to destroy the efficiency of government. And that's where we are today. So, Charlie, there's actually a connection of what we've been talking about earlier in the show with Mark Meadows and Jenna Ellis, which is that it appears these members of the Republican House caucus are rooting out anyone, C. Emmer, who was nominated and then quickly stepped away because he dared not support those lawsuits

challenging the election results. Now, he did sign on to one in Texas, so he's not totally clean on this. But anybody and they're proudly talking behind the scenes to Trump's people saying, I stood up for you in the caucus room. I stood up for you. We're getting rid of anybody who does not support you. Donald Trump hangs over this process entirely. That's absolutely right. I mean, the Republicans are now in this, you know, doom loop of of crazy and absurdity, you know, deep dive into the back benches to come up with somebody who would be acceptable and acceptable in a party that has been, you know, facing all of the legal problems that he is facing, reasserted himself as the apex predator of the Republican Party. He doesn't have the clout to get somebody like Jim Jordan elected as speaker, but he certainly has the clout that he can destroy anyone who has taken a stand against him on the big lie.

And so what you are seeing is, in fact, that support for the big lie, support for overturning the 2020 election has now become, you know, not just a litmus test. It has become a life or death requirement in the Republican Party, because Donald Trump has made it clear that if you did not sign on to what he attempted to do on January 6th, that he will kneecap you. He will take you out. He's sitting in court. I mean, think about his day yesterday. He's sitting in court hearing, you know, testimony about how he, you know, all the fraud he engaged in. Here's the Jen Ellis has flipped the story of Mark Meadow getting immunity. And yet what does he do? He basically

says, you know, I am still in charge of the Republican Party. I can extend this chaos and I can set the standard for the future of this party. It's kind of a remarkable 24 hours. And he called yesterday in a post Congressman Emmer, a, quote, globalist rhino, because he did not support the attempted coup in the 2020 election. So, Julie Serkin, this brings us to you today. You've been covering this somehow for the last three weeks, trying to figure out who is going to be the choice. For the moment, it's Congressman Johnson of Louisiana. Who's next on the world's most boring reality show?

Well, we've had Groundhog Day never ending for the last 22 days, but today could be different. And it's not because some of the hard right conservatives, these flamethrowers, are necessarily worried about the two global wars or the impending government shutdown deadline around the corner. This could potentially work out for Mike Johnson, the four-term Louisiana congressman, because these hard right conservatives are worried that moderate Republicans are going to get fed up with this entire process and start working across the aisle with Democrats to at least temporarily empower the Speaker pro tem. Patrick McHenry, this could really be some of these hard right conservatives' last ditch effort to get somebody in the Speaker's chair that they could potentially swallow. And Mike Johnson was one of the chief architects, as you know, of that 2020 election overturn effort in the Capitol.

And it's why, for so many reasons, he has a support, not only of former President Trump, but also he could potentially unite the wide swath of opinions in the conference. He's not necessarily a loud flamethrower like Jim Jordan was. He operates quietly. He's even been seeking this bid, I'm told, quietly this whole time for the past few weeks. But he didn't officially enter until he saw the writing on the wall, of course, for Emmer and some of the others. And potentially at 12 o'clock today, while we're skipping these secret ballots behind closed doors, Johnson apparently feels confident enough that he could go to the floor as a current member of leadership, the last current member of

leadership that could potentially get the gavel and get the 217 votes needed on the floor. Now, it won't be easy for him. Obviously, he has an uphill battle here. But as I said, this could really be the last effort, the last time that some of the hard right, including those who ousted Kevin McCarthy from the speaker's chair, could actually get their guy or somebody that they could be OK with in the speaker's chair, because Johnson doesn't support Ukraine. He they could be OK with in the speaker's chair, because Johnson doesn't support Ukraine. He's been skeptical of it in the past. He's going to have to enter the room right away if he wins the gavel with McConnell, with Jeffries, with Schumer to try and hammer out the next government funding deadline. But he's really somebody who could be the voice for some of these hard right conservatives.

Well, so but but Charlie, if he if he doesn't support Ukraine funding, he's lost Chairman McCaul and a hell of a lot of other Republicans. If he was at the forefront of the January 6th election denying scheme in the House of Representatives, then he certainly has lost Ken Buck from Colorado and a handful of other members. So they're not going to get there. At what point? At what point do Republicans start looking? And again, what I have been saying every day is actually for the benefit of the Republican House. So if they're going, oh, Rhino this or, you know, left wing Joe or whatever, I've been saying time and time again,

what would work for the Republican Party? At what point, Charlie, do they look at the 15 or so Republicans that won in Biden districts and say, we better team up with Democrats, get the Speaker pro tem in, get our business done and stop making these 15 Republicans who are going to determine whether we're the majority next year or not. Help these 15 Republicans go back to their districts and tell their people that they're actually doing the people's business instead of just fighting each other because of five or six crazy radicals. Well, it does feel, Joe, like you and I have been asking the question for the last seven years, when are Republicans going to come to their senses? And we've seen how that's worked out. I mean, this is a party that is still about to nominate Donald Trump. So, you know, to your question, maybe they will do it when they are absolutely exhausted,

because what's happened now is that chaos has become a reflex. It is dysfunction is the new normal. Whatever happens today, whether they burn through Mike Johnson, whether he gets to 217, and I'm very skeptical of that, it's going to be dysfunction because this is the party. This is the caucus. this is the moment we are in you're asking when are they going to put country ahead of these petty squabbles who knows they haven't done it so far they have turned the house of representatives this is this is not game of thrones anymore this is south park and yet they're apparently okay with this so i don't know

that there's an end in sight because as as you point out, you have maybe what, seven, eight legislative terrorists who will never allow a normal, moderate speaker who will actually be able to keep the government open. And one hopes that you still have about 20 normie Republicans who will not vote for a legislative terrorist or somebody like a Mike Johnson, who was one of the architects of the attempt to overthrow the election. But, you know, at this point, whatever happens is going to be a kind of a crazy response because this is the party and this is this is their culture. And again, it doesn't matter whether it gets to 217 or not. This continues. It does. Charlie Sykes, thank you very much. And NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Sirkin, thank you as well for your reporting this morning and coming up on Morning Joe amid rising tensions in the Middle East over

the Israel-Hamas war. The Pentagon says Iranian proxies have attacked American troops in Iraq and Syria 13 times in the past week. We'll have details on the dozens of U.S. service members left wounded. Plus, The Washington Post's David Ignatius will join the conversation with his new piece on the complicated situation Israel faces in its mission to destroy Hamas. Morning Joe will be right back. Welcome back to Morning Joe. What a beautiful shot of New York City as the sun comes up this morning. The Pentagon has confirmed attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East have been increasing. And now we're learning dozens have been injured. NBC News that two dozen military personnel were injured last week in a series of drone strikes at American bases in Syria and Iraq.

The Pentagon confirmed the strikes on two bases last week. According to CENTCOM officials on October 18th, 20 American personnel were wounded when at least two drones targeted the Al-Tanf military base in southern Syria. On that same day, four more American personnel were hurt during two separate drone attacks against U.S. and coalition forces stationed at Al-Assad base in western Iraq. All the injuries were minor and all the service members have returned to duty, the Pentagon says, since October 17th. U.S. and coalition forces have been targeted at least 10 times in Iraq and three times in Syria with a mix of drone and rocket attacks. The Pentagon spokesman adding they believe the groups conducting the attacks

are supported by Iran. Joe. Let's bring in right now columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius. You know, David is Mike Barnicle reminded us last week we were coming up on the 40th anniversary of the 1983 Beirut bombing, which Iranians killed over 240 American Marines in their barracks, sleeping in their barracks in Beirut. We have, of course, since 1979, we've dealt with this terrorist state and allowed them to kidnap, hold hostage and kill Americans. Is the Biden administration going to be forced to respond to this, to these attacks on U.S. servicemen? Joe, first, I have been watching and seeing close hand this war now for all these 40 years. I was in the American embassy in 1983 when it was bombed by what we now know as an Iranian-backed group. And it continues to this day.

The attacks that were described on U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq are part of a continuing effort by Iran to drive the United States from the region. The U.S. very much wants to avoid a direct conflict with Iran now. It feels that Israel's got its hands full with the Hamas, does not want to see a wider war. There's some indications that the Iranians would like to fight through proxies. They don't want direct conflict either. But these attacks are going to draw U.S. response. have 20 people injured at Al-Tanf, a base in the desert sand between Iraq and Lebanon in the Syrian desert, you're going to have American reprisals the same with the attack in Iraq at Al-Assad Air Base. These could easily have killed Americans. If an American is killed, it was a contractor who

died of a heart attack after a strike several days ago. If an American is killed. It was a contractor who died of a heart attack after a strike several days ago. If an American is killed directly, I think you're going to see a significant U.S. response to establish some kind of deterrence with the Iranians. What we should take away from this, Joe, is that this war is slowly widening. There's now firing at Israel across the Syrian border, across the Lebanese border from Yemen. And there's firing at Israel's key ally, the United States. So this war is getting hotter. The efforts of the U.N. increasingly are critical of Israel. So the information war side of this is also worrying from Israel's standpoint. Right. So, David, I understand the United States doesn't want this war to widen.

I would think Iran would not be foolish enough to want this war to widen. Perhaps I'm wrong. I will say I will say, though, and I want to get to your piece and I want to get to Israel and and and Gaza and the U.N. and what's going on there. But first, I just have to ask a more general question. I know you remember this and Mike Barnicle remembers this. Maybe a few others watching right now remember this. But in the 1980s, it was Bud McFarlane who took a Reagan Bible where Reagan wrote a note to the Iranian leaders and brought a birthday cake shaped like a key that suggested an opening

of a relationship between the United States and Iran. And throughout the Iranian hostage crisis, we were constantly looking for Iranian moderates. Barack Obama searched for eight years for Iranian moderates. They're not there. They've never been there. What do we do? I mean, do we continue stumbling forward and just pushing this off to the next president until this country has nuclear weapons and starts using them or threatening to use them? Well, I don't think for the moment that what we should do is go to war with Iran. But you're right. Every administration since 1979 has been trying to do

basically the same thing, which is to bend the arc of that Iranian revolution towards something more moderate, more reasonable, something we can deal with. Henry Kissinger famously said that Iran has to make the judgment that it's a nation with interests, not a cause. And it still behaves like a cause. It does operate through these proxies. It doesn't like to go in directly. But the proxies themselves get better and better armed, more and more dangerous. Has bullet. So, David, what do we do? I mean, of course, we can't go to war right now with Iran. But what do we do? We don't. I mean, one thing we can't do is just sit back and continue to allow our troops to be fired upon and injured. So I think, Joe, the coalition of Arab countries that hate Iran as much as we do is growing. Saudi Arabia is opening diplomatic contacts with Iran just to de-escalate tension,

but it's fundamentally opposed to Iranian interests. The idea that Saudi Arabia could, after this Gaza war is over, normalize relations with Israel, that's a dagger in Iran's heart. That's the last thing Iran would like to see is essentially an end to Arab-Israeli confrontation, at least on the Sunni side. So that's one reason that Israel should behave very carefully in this war. So as not to blow up the possibility of this normalization that the U.S. has been helping to negotiate right up to the day that on October 7 that Hamas came across the fence. That's one way that Iran's interests really will be threatened. So meanwhile, the United Nations is calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, saying there have been clear violations of international humanitarian law. The U.S. is siding with Israel, saying a ceasefire would only benefit Hamas. The U.S. is siding with Israel,

saying a ceasefire would only benefit Hamas. The White House instead supporting a humanitarian pause. At the U.N. yesterday, the international body's secretary general denounced Hamas. He also criticized Israel. Here's some of what he said, followed by the response from Israeli diplomats. It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum.

The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation. They have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence. Nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nështë nësht justify the appalling attacks by Hamas, and those appalling attacks cannot justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people. It is not only Israel's right to destroy Hamas, it's our duty. For Israel, it's a matter of survival. The free world should remember and never forget what happened on October 7th. Today, this barbaric terror hit Israel. Tomorrow, it will be at everyone's doorstep, at everyone's doorstep.

I think that the Secretary General must resign because from now on, every day that he is here in this building, unless he apologizes immediately, today we called him to apologize, there is no justification to the existence of this building. was established to prevent atrocities. How can the secretary general, with his words, justify in any way the terrible atrocities that happened to our civilians, innocent civilians? To David Ignatius, there's been this instinct over the last few weeks to say, yes, what happened was terrible with Hamas. And then there's a comma and a but. We must put this into context, which is exactly what we heard from the head of the UN yesterday, calling for a ceasefire to which the Israelis say,

if we have a ceasefire, Hamas is not going to cease firing. They'll just look at that as disarmament and an invitation to attack us again. So how did this play out at the U.N. and really in a broader global conversation right now? Well, Willie, it's an example of just how short people's memories are. It's little more than two weeks ago that we were all reeling from the images of really savagery of Hamas fighters going house to house, room to room, killing Israelis

just in a barbaric way that was truly reminiscent of ISIS. Somehow that's gone out of the consciousness of people like Guterres, who are now focusing on collective punishment, in his words, of the Palestinians. To me, it's a reminder that Israel in a just cause, which is this battle against Hamas, and who would question that that is a just and appropriate mission after what happened. Israel has to be very careful to observe the laws of war, to protect civilians as best it can. I think it's trying to. We had evidence that just came from the U.S. intelligence community that a criticism of Israel that it supposedly bombed a hospital in Gaza was false, that the rockets that fell on the hospital did not come from Israel.

But Israel's been losing some of these information battles, and I think it's causing increasing trouble. This war is only going to get more difficult. The images are only going to get more violent. And that's one of the things that worries me. Israel has to convince the world again that this is a just cause, that it's behaving with proportionate force, that whatever suffering the Palestinians are experiencing in the end is the result of Hamas, which imprisons Palestinians in this enclave, makes them, in a sense, instruments of a war that they didn't start. And by the way, it's been an occupation since 2005. And the occupiers have been Hamas. The terrorists have been Hamas since 2007.

There hasn't been an election they've run is autocratic terrorists. I do want to just for people who listened to the U.N. secretary general's words yesterday, I want to I want to put this into perspective for you. How an Israeli may be feeling about it this morning. Just please, please open your mind. I know it may be hard for some of you who see posters being torn down of Israeli hostages and thinking that that's somehow a great answer. That's how decolonization looks. I just want you to open your mind for a second. And Mike Barnicle, I'm curious, how would Americans have responded in late September of 2001 if the U.N. Secretary General said Osama bin Laden's attacks on September 11th did not happen in a vacuum. Why? There was 60 years of American imperialism across the Middle East. So it did not happen in a vacuum. Or maybe if there were a U.N., if around Christmas 1941, you had had some world leaders saying, you know, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th of this year didn't happen in a vacuum.

After all, the United States continued to expand across the Pacific and was cutting off trade routes and squeezing their oil supplies. I wonder how Americans would respond. And I wonder if that would stop us from attacking Japan. And I wonder if that would stop us from doing what we had to do to win that war, from doing what we had to do to defeat Adolf Hitler. I don't think it would. And let me just tell you the horrors of World War II, the horrors that were visited upon citizens of Japan and Germany and other countries, allies and Axis powers, just absolutely horrific and absolutely mind blowing. I don't see that here. I see I see the Israelis doing their best.

I see a lot of human suffering. I see a lot of pain. I see a lot of horror. But as I said from the beginning, when an Israeli soldier dies or an Israeli civilian is raped or an Israeli baby is shot, Hamas considers that a victory. They said it. When a Palestinian is killed in Gaza, when a hospital is blown up in Gaza, even by other Palestinian terrorists, Hamas also sees that as a victory.

And yet the UN Secretary General really painted this with a moral equivalence that we certainly wouldn't take in the United States. I'm curious why people in the United States and across Europe and across the world think the Israelis should sit back, say, oh, OK, yeah, a ceasefire. Yeah, OK, yeah, let's let the people who raped our women, who shot our babies, who beheaded our infants, our toddlers, who massacred parents while their children watched, who massacred children while their parents watched. We should just kind of sit back and see what happens. Would Americans put up with that? Joe, this is an old story,

an old story, an ugly story. It's been going on for decades. When it comes to Israel and Hamas, Hamas is in business for one thing, not to cater to the Palestinians who they're supposed to govern in Gaza. It's to kill Jews. That's what Hamas exists for. And Israel, within 72 hours, again, history's predictable story, within 72 hours of this incredible attack, this incredible terrorist attack on Israelis, Jews in Israel. Israel became attacked globally through news media stories. The only country that exists today that gets attacked for defending itself is Israel. And David Ignatius, I'd like to ask you with regard to the Middle East itself, back to Iran, the principal proponent of violence in the Middle East.

What happens when inevitably, sadly, the first American is killed in action through Iranian missile shots or whatever in Iraq or Syria. What happens when the phone rings in Amman, Riyadh and the United Arab Emirates and the president of the United States is on the other end of the line and he says, boys, we've had enough. We're going to saddle up here. What happens then? Well, Mike, when you say saddle up, I don't know whether we've got the whole wagon train here or a more proportional response. I guess I'd guess the latter. We will strike back if Americans are killed. I have no doubt about that. We'll we'll send that message. Our ships have already been in action in a sense.

We've already entered this war, shooting down at least two missiles that were bound from Yemen toward Israel. Those were shot down by an American ship. So we're moving toward being involved in this. This could be a big catastrophic war that would leave everybody worse off than before. So being careful, being cautious is appropriate. You want to ratchet up your responses carefully. I think for Israel, as I talked to Israeli officials in Israel, the reason they're moving slowly, that this ground invasion hasn't started yet, is they want to be careful. They want, to the extent possible,

to focus on Hamas and not be targeting Palestinian civilians. One Israeli told me we'd like every bullet we fire to have an address. So that precision is crucial. But the basic question that you and Joe are raising, what do we do about Iran in the long run, I think continues to be the vexing question at the bottom of all this. It's Iran that is the backbone of this terror network. Israelis often say you have to cut off the head of the snake. I think we need to think more carefully about what that would look like in reality in a way that wouldn't lead to a war that would be devastating for everybody.