Morning Joe - Morning Joe 10/7/22

Episode Date: October 7, 2022

Biden warns risk of nuclear 'Armageddon' is highest since Cuban Missile Crisis

Just before the top of the hour, we're following major developments on the war in Ukraine and signs that Vladimir Putin's ironclad grip might be slipping. What will that mean? What will he do? Meanwhile, President Biden makes eye-opening comments about the risks of a, quote, nuclear Armageddon, plus new reporting this morning on what the Justice Department believes Donald Trump is still hiding and how it divided the former president's legal team. Also ahead, this is a big story. The feds flip a member of the Proud Boys and pick up a

key witness against the far right group with ties to Trump's inner circle. And I didn't do it. But if it did happen, there's nothing to be ashamed of. That was a short lived defense from Herschel Walker yesterday to a report that he paid for a former girlfriend's abortion. We're going to go through his evolving denials on that developing story. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Friday, October 7th. With us, we have Pulitzer Prize winning columnist at The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson, U.S. national editor at The Financial Times. Ed Luce is with us, professor at Princeton University, Eddie Glaude Jr., and the host of way too early, White House bureau chief at Politico. Jonathan Lemire is with

us this morning. Yeah. Yeah. I know we were going to get into the news, but I just I got I just saw Ed there. I saw a little smirk on Ed's face and I just have to talk about it. You know, we we have an expression. We've always had an expression when people have have congratulated me for anything I've done. I go, well, I'm the tallest building in Schenectady. I love Schenectady, but I thought this building in Schenectady. Right. Your headline. I love this. America is history's most successful failing state. I would define what you're describing here. I'm an upstate New York guy. I lived there for several years growing up.

And you love Schenectady. I love Schenectady. But that's more like the tallest building in Utica. But, you know, it's so funny. People on the far right, the Trump right, are constantly attacking Americans, saying how horrible it is. And as I've said, we may have our problems. But if you go back and you look at the classic, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy, it was always how strong is a country relative to everybody else on the globe? And he takes this grand sweeping look at Europe from 1500 on.

I must say, by that standard, our economy is stronger in comparison to the rest of the world than any time, perhaps in the postwar world. You could certainly say that about our military. I don't know if if our military has ever been as dominant in comparison with the rest of the world. And you could look at us culturally. So even with all of these problems, compare us to the rest of the world in terms of relative strength. The United States is actually doing quite well. And you talk about it in your column. Yeah, and you're quite right. Power is relative. And in the last couple of years because of covid, but also because of the February 4th, 24th invasion, America's two great rivals, China with this zero covid, it's really hard to understand zero covid policy that has killed growth in the country and that looks like continuing at least

until up to the Chinese New Year next February, has seen its growth slow down dramatically. We're probably in an actual recession. You don't believe the official numbers. So China is the growth, the big engine of the world economy is no longer the case and probably not for the foreseeable future. India is becoming the high growth big economy. So there's China counting itself out for reasons hard to understand. Putin making, you know, probably the most classic military blunder in modern history. If you define it by his idea of the map, Putin has invaded Russia in winter, which is not what you do. History tells you not to do that. And it is at a stroke, you know, united the West, restored an undisputed American leadership

of the West and shown not only that American arms and equipment and intelligence assistance can be extremely effective, but also that the United States can actually command an ideological, if you like, a pro-democracy, a positive feeling about the Western system, which we just haven't had in a long time. So America's relative decline has just gone into, in the last couple of years, a relative ascendancy, which is extraordinary. I don't think you would have predicted this a year or two ago. Interesting. Well, having said all of that, we're going to be going live to Moscow in just a moment. But first, the stark new warning from the president of the United States when it comes to the threat of nuclear war. Speaking last night in New York City, President Biden said the risk of nuclear Armageddon is the highest it has been in roughly 60 years since President Kennedy and the Cuban missile

crisis. It all stems from Russia's flailing invasion of Ukraine. Biden said President Vladimir Putin is, quote, not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming. Russia has faced huge setbacks on the battlefield as Ukrainian forces continue to take back land illegally occupied by Moscow. There has been widespread concern that Putin could use a weapon of mass destruction to regain some footing in the war. But in the words of President Biden, quote, I don't think there's any such thing as the ability to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon. And this has been

one of the crises out of this war, Joe, that perhaps one couldn't easily predict from the get go because nobody, I think, could imagine how well the Ukrainians would do, how resilient, how unbelievably strong in the face of evil, really, and atrocities happening on their land to their people. And yet they continue to push the Russians back. I don't think anyone can predict what happens when Putin is actually realistically in a corner. Well, it's he's actually in that corner now. Dan Drezner had a great piece out yesterday, which we're going to be talking about a bit where where he was talking about this talk of absolute victory by Ukraine and talking about the pushing of Putin further into the corner actually creates with it quite, quite, quite a few problems for us. And Gene Robinson, there's nothing simple about this war. There's nothing simple about this war for the Ukrainian people at the beginning. There's going to be nothing simple about this war at the end. As Dan Dresner says, this cannot be seen by

Russia. This cannot be seen by Vladimir Putin as an existential crisis. I know people love to say, you know, the Ukrainians are going, you know, there's no no substitute, but the complete destruction of Vladimir Putin. And now it's just again, they have more nuclear weapons than anybody on the face of the earth. And we're going, you know, the Cuban missile crisis was brought up by President Biden last night. We're going to have to be creative, as Kennedy was when you got the missiles out of Cuba, but quietly got missiles out of Turkey. We're not dealing with Belarus here. We're dealing with a country that has nuclear weapons and doesn't have any problems threatening

to use them. No, that's absolutely right. And you have a leader, Vladimir Putin, who seems on some level, and I don't think this is necessarily all rhetoric, to see this as some sort of existential crisis and threat for the Russian Federation, for Mother Russia. And so, any solution, any end to this—and I don't know what the exact outlines of an end to this war will be, but whatever those outlines are, they're going to have to include some sort of assurance, or at least Putin getting the message that, no, there is no existential threat to Russia.

No one is trying to threaten the motherland. It is, you know, the fact that you invaded a sovereign neighbor and are holding territory that's not yours and are bombing, like they did just yesterday, bombing indiscriminately civilian targets and killing people. And that's not this is not acceptable. And so those two messages have to be delivered. And there's going to be there's going to have to be something concrete. But again, I don't know what it is that that gives Putin that reassurance and that fabled missing off ramp that everybody keeps looking for. Nobody yet has been able to find. If he wants it. Putin's mishandling of the war in Ukraine has come under a torrent of criticism in recent days. And according to The New York Times,

the Russian leader now faces growing dissent in his own camp. The paper reports the latest salvo came on Thursday when a Russian installed official in the occupied region of Ukraine belittled the Kremlin's defense minister, a close associate of Mr. Putin. The official said the minister should consider killing himself because of his army's failures in Ukraine. The criticism appears to be widespread. The Times continues, the head of the defense committee in Russia's lower house of parliament excoriated the defense ministry for covering up the bad news from the front. Another lawmaker said that members of parliament had written to Russia's prosecutor general asking for an investigation into the

military's supply problems. Meanwhile, war bloggers and public officials have gone from cheerleading Russia's advances to grumbling ever more loudly about the military's failings. This as one member of Vladimir Putin's inner circle has voiced disagreement directly to the Russian president himself over his handling of the war in Ukraine, according to information obtained by U.S. intelligence. The Washington Post reports, quote, the information was deemed significant enough that it was included in President Biden's daily intelligence briefing and shared with other U.S. officials, according to people familiar with the matter. The paper adds the criticism marks the clearest indication yet of turmoil within Russia's leadership over the stewardship of a war that has gone disastrously wrong for Moscow. Joe, let's go right now to Moscow and NBC News senior international correspondent Kier Simmon.

Kier, it is notable that there is a rising tide of criticism against Russian officials, but Vladimir Putin and other leaders are not cracking down on that dissent. Right now, they are allowing that dissent. What can you tell us about perhaps that strategy and just about the general debate in Russia right now about how this war has gone sideways? Joe, I think it tells us something very, very important. I think it tells us that President Putin is under pressure from his hardliners here in Moscow. Now, from that reporting overnight from The Washington Post, the member of his inner circle that allegedly confronted him. And according to that reporting, Dmitry Peskov in the Kremlin has denied that

President Putin himself was directly confronted. But according to that reporting, it was a member of President Putin's inner circle. Now, that could be anyone. We don't know. We don't know the name. The idea that there are divisions within President Putin's inner circle. That is not news. Look, it could be a Patrushev, the former head of the FSB, now the secretary of the Security Council. It could even be a Sechin, who runs Gazprom, but goes back with President Putin to St. Petersburg today. Maybe a Chemesov, who was with President Putin in Germany in the KGB and now runs Rostec, the military company here in Russia.

I mean, frankly, it could be anyone. Sechin, for example, his rivalry with Shoigu, the defence minister, goes back years, is well known. So the idea that one of those members of the inner circle would go to the president of Russia and say, we think your defence minister, Shoigu, is letting you down. That is entirely believable. But what I think is really crucial, back to my answer, what I think is really crucial is to understand that there are really very few liberals left here in Russia. Many of them, even those liberals who were with President Putin back in St. Petersburg, have left the country. And so if you, for example, take a Medvedev, who, of course, is very close to President Putin right back to the beginning.

He remember the days when he was a liberal and he was friends with President Obama? Well, now, if you watch what he says, it's hard line. It's making those he too too is making those nuclear threats. So the question I think with President Putin is, and your panel has already touched on it, the question with President Putin is, is that he faces a choice at whether to escalate. And he is under pressure. We're seeing news anchors here on Russian television, commentators are calling for a direct confrontation with NATO. He's under pressure. And I think one of the most notable things that President Biden says was, Ted, was that question of, you know, I'm trying to figure out what the off ramp is for President Putin. We do know that President Putin has a history of escalating when he's under pressure. We are in a very, very dangerous

position. And I think it really does call for cool heads and no hyperbole, because, again, just to make the point again, there are voices here in Russia who are calling on President Putin to double down, to escalate. And that is the choice that President Putin has at this stage. You know, Keir, it's it's fascinating. Obviously, it is the hardliners who are voicing the most dissent right now. And in the West, despite the massive gains by the Ukrainians on the battlefield, you have foreign policy thinkers still talking about what they talked about at the beginning of this crisis, trying to find the so-called off ramp for Vladimir Putin, trying to find an off-ramp for Russia. Dan Dresner writing that it is critical that we make sure that Russia understands that while we're against this invasion, like we were against the invasion of Kuwait, this is not an existential crisis for Russia itself.

It doesn't sound like that's a message that's being received in Russia. It doesn't sound like anybody in Russia, based on what you're saying, is looking for a way out of this, an off-ramp. I don't, yeah, Joe, I don't think we know what the off-ramp would be. You know, it goes back to that age-old reality of politics, that all politics is local. What the president and other members of his inner circle here in Moscow will be thinking about is how things are received here in Moscow and in Russia. And the mobilization, the partial draft that was announced by President Putin has really brought this conflict home to many, many Russians. With it now, now the question of sons and brothers and husbands going to Ukraine. And that just adds to the pressure on President Putin, I think, looking ahead.

So, you know, ultimately, in some ways, this is a domestic political challenge now for President Putin and how he finds his way through that. I mean, he tells this story, doesn't he, about his childhood in St. Petersburg, about being cornered by a huge rat and what he learned about how when you are in a corner, you just fight back. Well, again, that is the kind of thinking

that will be going through President Putin's mind. And what he will be thinking about is how his people will respond to the next moves that he potentially makes. All right. NBC's Keir Simmons in Moscow. Thank you so much for being with us. We so appreciate it. Ed Luce, we appear to be talking to ourselves still in the West. We have from the very beginning. I remember speaking to a Russian official before the war. And they were in a different reality. They've been in a different reality, even now. It's happening in Ukraine with them, with the Russian army collapsing. There doesn't seem to be any pragmatic thought

about how do we get out of this, save face and reset? No, not whatsoever. I mean, I think for Putin, this is this is existential. I don't think he can politically afford to be seen to be losing this war. So if there is any realistic way an off ramp could be created by the West, it would be to help give him the appearance of not having lost this war whilst having actually lost this war. How do we how do we how do we do that? And what are some of the solutions? I know you don't want to set yourself up to be completely slammed on Twitter. We'll just generalize it here.

Because I talked about John Kennedy removing, quietly removing missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Russians taking missiles out of Cuba. What what would what would be those Turkish missiles in this case? Extremely hard to think of them, because remember, in this case is a whole nother added factor, which is the trillion dollars or so rebuilding of Ukraine after this war. And we shouldn't be paying for that. It should be Russia that pays for that with its oil revenues and other sources of money. And that's not something that Khrushchev and Kennedy were talking about because there had been no war. So any settlement, any off-ramp includes here is the bill, Russia.

And it's very hard to imagine Putin accepting that bill. I mean, I cannot think of what the face-saving formula is that for Putin to put out that would be consistent with the imperative of Ukraine not just winning this war, but demonstrating forever that Russia should not do this again, that the cost to Russia is so high that this is no longer conceivable, because that that would be the end of Putin. And we'd all like to see the end of Putin, but that would be the end of Putin. So I'm very pessimistic there is any realistic off ramp at the moment. Yeah. And on that note, Joe, U.S. officials, they're not seeing one either that Putin would take,

but also that Zelensky would take. That right now that the Ukrainians don't see any need to negotiate or compromise with Russia. They're advancing on their counter-offensive. There's even some talk of trying to get Crimea back, which of course the Russians have had in 2014. That shows you how well things have gone.

Two other notes here. U.S. officials were a little bit taken by surprise by the president's remarks last night of saying that this is the closest the world had been to nuclear Armageddon since the 1960s. They say they've been clear they're not seeing any change in Russia's nuclear posture. NATO intelligence also saying the same. They don't believe Russia is trying to ramp up that at all, at least not yet. But the idea of trying to also convince Putin that it's not an existential threat for Russia is also front of mind. I'm told, Joe, in the last couple of days, why the U.S. was putting out that information that it was Ukraine behind that car

bomb in Moscow over the summer, because that was seen as a warning to Ukraine. Hey, don't escalate this further. Things are going well as they are. You don't want to take this fight inside Russia. Can I ask you this, Jonathan? Can I ask you, do you know, is the White House upset over the fact that based on the intelligence they know that the Ukrainians went into Russia? Yes, very much so. The U.S. officials were upset. The U.S. administration, the government is upset that Ukraine did this, that they were told more not to in the beginning months of the war, not just from the U.S., but Western partners as well, saying, look, we don't want this war to escalate. We don't want this to become an even wider conflict. That's why they were so reluctant to give them long range missiles that they were thought Ukraine could use to shell deep hundreds of miles into Russian territory. They thought that was a bad

idea, too. They were upset they did this. Ukraine was warned not to do things like this. And the publication of this, their intelligence this week, giving it to The New York Times, was perceived in all corners as a warning to Ukraine, don't, we're aware of what you're doing. We weren't consulted the last time around. Don't do it again. And Eddie Glaude, I mean, from listening to this entire conversation on what is Vladimir Putin's 70th birthday, we wonder about his psychological state, what he's thinking at this point. I don't hear that he wants an off ramp. I don't hear that he I'm not getting anything from the analysis here that he's interested in pulling back. Right. And, you know, when you think about the actors and of course, this is outside of my wheelhouse, but you think about

the Ukrainians feeling a sense of existential threat. If Putin feels a sense of existential threat, that means Russia feels a sense of existential threat. There's a difficulty to distinguish the two. One wonders what happens. And then in the context of the U.S., in the context of President Biden's remarks, imagine, given all the stuff that Americans are facing at this moment, to now feel the threat of nuclear Armageddon on top of it all. It's unsettling. It is a really difficult time. We're going to be continuing this conversation. Still ahead on Morning Show, we're going to get a live report from Beijing amid heightened tensions following North Korea's missile tests this week. Plus, the latest on the controversy surrounding Georgia Senate nominee Herschel Walker. We'll take a look at his new response to allegations he paid for a girlfriend's abortion.

Also ahead, President Biden takes a major step toward decriminalizing marijuana. We'll talk about the significance of that move on many levels. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. 28 past the hour. Ed Luce, as we mentioned earlier, your latest column for The Financial Times is entitled America is the tallest building in Utica. We love Utica. It's actually entitled America's history is most successful failing state. And you write in part, quote, a key sign of fading power is its currency losing value. By this yardstick, America is close to an imperial peak. Yet political science tells us that America is more divided than at any point since the eve of its civil war in the 1850s. Could it be defying the laws of historical gravity, a failing state

that outshines its rivals? The answer is yes. For the time being, a nation can be both rich and ungovernable for long periods. There are two reasons for this. The first is that the U.S. rival is doing worse. Xi Jinping's China is no longer high growth star of the world economy. Relative to China, the U.S. looks good. The second reason is Vladimir Putin rarely has a hegemon been as blessed with a blundering an enemy as America is with Putin. For the time being, America's relative power is ascendant. America still bestrides the globe, but its jugular is badly exposed. And with that, you know, we all it all is coming back to the very, very tense crossroads we are at with this war. And you're writing a book

on my father, the official biography. And I just wonder, having seeped into his mind to write this book, if you're at all thinking about what he would be saying at this moment, because that's what I'm thinking every day. Yeah, I mean, of course, what he did was prevent the Soviets from invading Poland. It's a prickly hedgehog strategy. There's a lot of psychology involved there. A lot of psychology, therefore a lot of knowledge of language conditions on the ground, what the Russians hear, and the ability to speak Russian. Pretty helpful.

But he talked a lot about the Finlandization of Ukraine. I'm not sure he agreed with that. Henry Kissinger sort of pushed that line. And I think he would be as astonished as we all are to see the NATOization of Finland, quite the opposite to what having this neutral buffer state Ukraine. That's no longer in anybody's menu. It's inconceivable that we would demand that of Ukraine now. Putin has ensured it is a permanent part of the West, that it will permanently feel very Ukrainian, much more than it did six months ago. And I think your father, you know, part of his family having grown up in what is now Ukraine, what was then Poland, Lviv or Lvov as the Poles call it, would see this as an extraordinary windfall for the West and something that nobody really could have forecast.

Even your father, I think, would have found the speed with which this has happened hard to forecast. Oh, Joe. Yeah. And I do think the one thing I can say with certain because I was blessed to know Dr. Brzezinski and spend much time with him privately and publicly. I'm quite certain if he were here today, he would say that I'm stunningly superficial. Thank you so much. Financial Times. Great to have you here with me. I don't know. Maybe he would. Ed, I know you have to remind me. Thank you. Long time ago, Ed. Hey, Ed, keep that part out of the book. Thank you. I'm joking. So,

Eddie Glaude, we have, it's so fascinating. We always talk about in the show how two things can be true at the same time. We have the United States in terms of relative power to the rest of the world at a stronger position since 1945. Perhaps, I know this is hard to believe because Washington is so dysfunctional. Perhaps at the strongest point relative to the rest of the world than it's ever been, even 2000, because we had a strong rising China at that point. 1945, we had a bipolar world with the Soviet Union. But I keep thinking of the Lincoln quote, where the famous Lincoln quote, where he said all the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined

with all the treasure of the earth in their military chest with a bone apart for a commander could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. And Lincoln goes on to say that if we die as a nation, we will die from our own hand. Right. Right. I think, Joe, you know, it's the state of the world is what it is. And America's standing in the world is a reflection of the state of the world, I think. But those internal contradictions that Lincoln was grappling with are so pronounced in our current moment. I'm thinking about deep wealth inequality. I'm thinking about the outsized role of money in our politics. I'm thinking about partisan division, how it has impacted the ways in which we deliberate about the future of the

country. I'm thinking about racial divisions and the way in which it has in some ways shackled our imaginations in so many ways. I'm thinking about the way in which the republic feels as if its foundation has cracked in this moment. And so I think the internal divisions that the Lincoln reference is turning our attention to and what you're calling our attention to are really important because it won't be our failure in the world. It will be our failure to live up to our ideals that will be the source of our ending, it seems to me. And with all this, so many different moving parts happening around the world, tensions escalating on the Korean Peninsula as North Korea's recent barrage of missile tests have prompted the U.S., South Korea and Japan to conduct joint military drills in response. The Pentagon yesterday condemned North Korea's

actions, calling them, quote, destabilizing, unhelpful and irresponsible, and urged the DPRK to cease them immediately. Joining us now, NBC News foreign correspondent Janice Mackey-Frayer, live from Beijing. Janice. We've seen the U.S. strengthening its military position around the Korean Peninsula with the return of the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier strike group, carrying out military drills with Japan and South Korea, trilateral exercises for the next couple of days. At the same time, moving in new equipment to South Korea for the TAD missile system. That will be something that will be a thorn in the side less for North Korea than for China. All of this coming just a day after North Korean warplanes were carrying out

firing drills along the border, forcing South Korea to send up 30 aircraft in response. So we're seeing this ramping up that has been familiar territory here, certainly reminiscent of 2017. The differences now, though, in the pattern of the launches between now and five years ago is that North Korea's missiles appear to be more advanced. They're quicker to deploy. They're proving to be more accurate. They're proving to be stronger. The other difference that I've seen this time is almost near silence from Pyongyang. Usually by this point, after firing that intercontinental ballistic missile right over Japan on Tuesday, we would have had images, we would have had video, we would have had officials within the regime trumpeting the accomplishment. But there has been only a two line statement talking about the U.S. stoking tension in the region with the return of

that aircraft carrier. And Kim Jong Un hasn't been seen in public for over three weeks now. Even his birthday message to Vladimir Putin was a statement that was delivered by state media. Janice, what are you hearing in Beijing? What does your reporting tell you about the best guests there and among U.S. officials? Why now? Why such a provocative attack toward Japan especially?

Well, first and foremost, North Korea is on a schedule. Kim Jong-un has already had a record year for testing. He has the objective of being a nuclear state, even if it's only in self-declaration. He passed a law in September allowing first use of nuclear strikes and also declared that he would never give up his nuclear weapons. What we're seeing in terms of timing, because nothing is coincidence when it comes to actions from North Korea, there's always timing and context involved, often linked to political opportunity or to calendar events. He seems to be leveraging the fact that the U.S. is of very divided attention right now, focused, of course, on Russia with the war in Ukraine, and, of course, focused as well on China and the deteriorating

relationship here. So he likely figures that actions speak louder than words these days. And he also seems to have the backing of his two allies in China and Russia at the UN Security Council, the two permanent members blocking any open discussion about stronger sanctions for North Korea. And that was echoed in the statement to Vladimir Putin today, where he talked about being rejoiced at having the support of Russia against the U.S. In terms of what's next, it's a nuclear test. It's widely expected to happen, probably going to be after China holds the Communist Party Congress here in a couple of weeks because he certainly wouldn't want to create a distraction that might infuriate Xi Jinping

and is likely to happen before the midterm elections in the U.S. We're seeing evidence and satellite imagery, but what's been really hard to read is any hard intelligence coming from inside the regime. The relationship between the U.S. and China, China would normally be a conduit for the U.S. on information is in tatters right now. And nobody seems to be talking to anybody. All right. NBC's Janice Mackey-Frayer, thank you very much for your live report. And coming up, new reporting on potential legal problems for Hunter Biden. As federal agents believe they have enough evidence to bring charges against the president's son. Meanwhile, a member of an extremist group that was at the Capitol on January 6th agrees to fully cooperate with the feds.

We'll look at what this new development could mean for members of Trump's inner circle. Morning Joe is coming right back. All right. Forty four past the hour. President Biden's son, Hunter, could face federal charges on alleged tax crimes. This following years of scrutiny into his business dealings. Let's bring in NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney. And with more on this, Ken, what can you tell us? Good morning, Mika. As you said, this federal investigation into Hunter Biden's business dealings has been going on for years, but it now looks like it may be coming closer to fruition.

Here's more. New signs Hunter Biden could face criminal charges. The Washington Post reporting federal agents believe they have a plausible case to charge the president's son with tax crimes and also with lying on a gun application when he said he wasn't using illegal drugs, citing people familiar with the case. The final decision about whether to file charges rests with the top federal prosecutor in Delaware, who was appointed by President Trump. The Justice Department declined comment. NBC News has not confirmed the report. Biden's lawyer saying prosecutors in this case are diligently and thoroughly weighing not just evidence provided by agents, but also all the

other witnesses. Hunter Biden's business dealings have repeatedly come under fire, including taking a lucrative position on a Ukrainian energy company's board while his father was vice president. An NBC News analysis of information on his laptop showed he and his firms were paid $11 million from 2013 to 2018, including by Chinese and Ukrainian firm. Last year, Hunter Biden insisted he did nothing wrong. I will be cleared of any wrongdoing. His lawyer said he paid a $2 million tax debt.

The White House is declining to comment on this, but of course, President Biden has repeatedly said he never discussed Hunter Biden's business dealings with his son. Joe? Yeah, so Ken, you use some language that. People are familiar with the case. I've been hearing for quite some time. I'm sure you've been hearing for quite some time, at least over the last couple of months, that at least on the tax issues, the feds are pretty confident that they have what they need for the tax charges, that this is open and shut. It's not like proving despite the fact that those numbers that we heard that he got from China and his work in Ukraine, those are outrageous numbers. But that's a bit

more of a lift to prove corruption there. They could do it. But from what I hear, I say they could try to do it. From what I hear, though, on the tax issue, at least, the feds are pretty confident they have an open and shut case against him. Is that what you're hearing? That's the reporting. Actually, we at NBC News, we tried very hard and talked to people familiar with the case who would neither confirm nor deny this post report. But as you know, Joe, I mean, tax cases are not all that difficult. He paid a $2 million tax bill last year, so he was in arrears on his taxes. The question with those cases is always, when does it become criminal tax evasion? And there's a lot of prosecutorial discretion about that.

There's a lot of people who evade taxes who are never prosecuted criminally. So that's going to be a big issue in this case. In terms of corruption, conflict of interest, we've never heard a hint that there were potential criminal charges there because Hunter Biden wasn't an officeholder. It was perfectly legal for him to take money from foreign governments as long as he wasn't inappropriately giving them information from his family or something. There's no hint of that. As bad as it looks, we should all acknowledge it looked terrible. He did this while his father was vice president and in charge of Ukraine issues.

And he was taking $50,000 a month from that energy company. But no hint that he was ever going to be charged on that count. But again, yes, the tax charges, it's a fairly simple proposition. But now it all comes down to what is this U.S. attorney in Delaware who was appointed by Donald Trump? What is he going to decide on this case? So NBC's Ken Delaney, and thank you for that. Why don't you stay with us? We definitely want to get your insight and analysis on what could be a pretty potentially major headline coming up more on the guilty plea on seditious conspiracy by a member of the Proud Boys. We'll be right back with that. 53 past the hour, a former leader of the far right extremist group, the Proud Boys, has pleaded

guilty to seditious conspiracy in connection with the January 6th riot. Jeremy Bertino of North Carolina is the first member of the group to plead guilty in connection with the January 6th riot. Jeremy Bertino of North Carolina is the first member of the group to plead guilty in connection with last year's attack on the Capitol. He has agreed to fully cooperate with prosecutors. Five other members of the group, including the group's founder, Enrique Tarrio, were indicted on similar charges in June and are awaiting a December trial under sentencing guidelines. Bertino faces up to 63 months in prison. Joe, this is a big headline on a number of levels. You have members of the Oath Keepers facing charges.

We haven't seen charges like this yet in the January 6th legal proceedings. And this is a guilty plea. This is a big deal. And it's a big deal for for several reasons. Let's bring Ken back in here. Ken Delaney and big deal, first of all, because it's very hard to prove seditious conspiracy, even though when we looked at the videos the day after January the 6th, I was saying on air, a lot of people could have been charged with seditious conspiracy. But it's obviously much, much harder than than than that. But but we have a plea deal here. Do we have any evidence that he's turning turning states evidence against some of the others that were with him in that conspiracy? Yes, Joe, he has agreed to fully cooperate and he is charged in a conspiracy

with five other Proud Boys. So he's the first Proud Boy to plead guilty to seditious conspiracy. And that's hugely important because that means he can go to that trial in December and testify against his fellow Proud Boys about exactly what they were planning. And as we've seen from this Oath Keeper trial, they don't just rely on the testimony of witnesses. They have a massive trove of communications, text messages, recorded phone calls, that sort of indicts the defendants in their own words about what exactly they wanted to do. I mean, we're only three days into this month-long Oathkeeper's trial, and already we've heard Stuart Rhodes on tape talking about, you know, that his only regret was that the Capitol attackers

didn't bring guns. And another defendant, Thomas Caldwell, saying that they would have killed 100 politicians if they had guns at the Capitol. So and then we've had this parade of witnesses of former Oath Keepers in this trial talking about how they were growing increasingly troubled as this group essentially made clear it wanted to go to war with the U.S. government. So that's the Oath Keepers trial. I think we can expect exactly the same thing in the Proud Boys trial.

It's really remarkable how much evidence the government has gathered. The big question, of course, is will we learn anything about any connections between these far right extremist groups and their seditious alleged seditious conspiracies and members of the Trump inner circle who are clearly egging all this on? That remains to be seen. But these are it's clear that DOJ has powerful, powerful evidence against these groups. Ken, you took my question away from me. Do you think this guy, the guy who's now turned, you know, turned in some ways in favor of the prosecution, will he give us more insight into the relationship between these organizations and the Trump administration? I mean, these guys have this guy has, you know, said he's guilty of seditious conspiracy. I mean, what does this mean in so many ways in terms of how we might think about the Trump administration and its relationship to all of this? It's a great question, Eddie. We just don't know. I mean, we don't know what sort of insights this Jeremy Bertino has into the inner workings of the Proud Boys at the highest level. And we don't know what evidence

exists. We know there were secret meetings in parking garages and various phone calls. And, you know, the Oath Keepers, for example, were providing security for Roger Stone, obviously a confidant of Donald Trump. But I think that's the big question in all these cases. And in the January 6th investigation writ large, I mean, it's not the only question, because obviously there's so much that Donald Trump and his inner circle is alleged to have done outside of, you know, outside of directly instigating the violence that sort of led up to the violence. And we've seen all that in the January 6th hearings. But this question of were they in direct touch with these far-right

groups that were clearly planning or allegedly clearly planning seditious conspiracies, that's an unanswered question that perhaps these trials will answer, and perhaps they won't. Ken, so we got the Oath Keepers over here, and we got the Proud Boys over there. Is there any evidence or indication that they were in touch with each other, that in fact we're talking about one large, organized group between these two, or were they on completely separate track setting for the same goal? Another great question, Eugene. So the government has not alleged that they were working together. These are separate cases. But there's that famous parking garage meeting that we've all seen the video of where the leaders were together. I'm not the expert on this. My colleague Ryan Riley has been spending his entire

career in recent years digging into January 6th, and he knows all the ins and the outs of this. But so there was some evidence of communication between those groups. And I think it's unknown at this point how deep that goes. But the government hasn't alleged it in court papers. So, Ken, I'm curious about new developments that we're reading about relating to the search of Donald Trump's Moralago. The Times is reporting that the Justice Department still believes Trump still has more documents in his possession. Two people familiar with the matter tell The Times, a top DOJ official in recent weeks,

that the department believed that he didn't return all the documents when he left the White House. It's not clear what steps, if any, the Justice Department might take to retrieve that material. The time goes on to note that the outreach from the DOJ prompted a rift among Trump's lawyers. Some believed in a more cooperative approach that would include bringing in an outside firm to conduct a further search for documents. Others advised Trump to

maintain a more combative position. What can you tell us? Yeah, Joe, the Wall Street Journal, I noticed, has also confirmed that story. We have not at NBC News, though we have no reason to doubt it, that Jay Brat, the head of the DOJ's counterintelligence section, has notified the Trump lawyers that they think that there may be more classified documents out there. It's extraordinary, right? If that were true, it's just mind boggling. It's like, when is this guy going to give up all the classified documents that he took with him? And remember, too, the videos of Trump aides loading boxes into private jets that were headed for Bedminster. At the time, I asked law enforcement sources about that and whether there were concerns about that and whether they intended to perhaps search Bedminster. And the response I got was, look, if we had that evidence, we would already be searching. And, you know, that maybe don't pay too much attention to that.

But clearly, clearly, there is a concern that not all the classified documents were seized in the various, in the first, the grand jury subpoena, and then the raid at Mar-a-Lago. And if they discover more, I mean, it seems to me that just it's a devastating piece of evidence and makes it more likely than not that they charge this case. But again, we're not there yet. And there's still a lot we don't know. How strong are these suspicions? What evidence do they have? Do they have insiders telling them that there are more classified documents? Or is it just a matter of the archive says they think their document X, Y and Z should be there and they don't see them in the boxes? So we'll have to wait and see. But this is this investigation still has legs, guys. NBC's Ken Delaney. And thank you very much.