Morning Joe - Morning Joe 11/9/23

Episode Date: November 9, 2023

Debate participants sharpen attacks on Trump

I would say that a package, a package that's been offered by the president for Ukraine and Israel, that's the wrong approach. No, I don't think we should give them cash. I think we should give them the equipment and the ammunition to win. We need to stand by it. And those of us who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Biden wants one hundred and five billion dollars, 60, most of that Ukraine, including some of it going to pay pensions for bureaucrats and salaries. That is a totally ridiculous use of American tax dollars. An attempt at a nuanced debate on foreign policy between Republican presidential candidates last night in Miami that ultimately may not matter at all. There is a lot to cover from the showdown in Miami last night, which was less chaotic with fewer candidates on stage. But just like the previous debates, Willie, the front runner was not there. And for the most part, the other candidates did not attack the former president, who was leading by wide margins in the polls.

They didn't even touch him. They didn't talk about the problem of truth versus lies and Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Trump's daughter took the stand in New York yesterday in the civil fraud trial against the family's business. We'll go through Ivanka Trump's testimony. Also ahead, the latest on a significant development in the Middle East. Negotiations are underway to release more hostages being held by Hamas. Plus, it appears Hollywood is ready to get back to work. We'll have an update on the historic actor strike that's been going on for almost four months. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Thursday, November 9th. What a week it's been, Willie. Last night, they didn't talk about

Donald Trump and they didn't talk about the historic losses from the night before the issue of abortion. I mean, what I don't know what moves the meter for any of these candidates. Yeah. Donald Trump was they asked about him at the beginning. They answered that question once. Why are you better to be the nominee than Donald Trump? And then moved on from it. They did talk later in the second hour about abortion and the night before. And you could really hear them walking that line. We saw what happened on Tuesday. We got smoked on the issue of abortion, but they don't quite know how to grapple with it. So did it move the meter in a race where the real clear average has Donald Trump up 35, 40 points over everyone on that stage? Probably not. But let's take a look at some of the what happened last night. Anyway, the host of way too early White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire,

is with us, also the founder of the conservative website, The Bulwark, Charlie Sykes and former White House director of communications for President Obama, Jen Palmieri. She's co-host of the MSNBC podcast How to Win 2024. So the third Republican primary debate hosted last night by NBC News. Five candidates on the stage last night in Miami. Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Vivek Ramaswamy and Chris Christie. They sparred over a number of issues from Israel's war with Hamas to abortion. Donald Trump, as we said, a no-show. He instead held a rally in a Miami suburb. For the first question of the night, the candidates were asked why they should be the Republican nominee for president instead of Donald Trump. Here were

their answers. And Donald Trump's a lot different guy than he was in 2016. He owes it to you to be on this stage and explain why he should get another chance. He should explain why he didn't have Mexico pay for the border wall. He should explain why he racked up so much debt. He should explain why he didn't drain the swamp. And he said Republicans were going to get tired of winning. Well, we saw last night, I'm sick of Republicans losing. I can tell you that I think he was the right president at the right time. I don't think he's the right president now. I think that he put us $8 trillion in debt and our kids are never going to forgive us for that. Anybody who's going to be spending the next year and a half of their life

focusing on keeping themselves out of jail and courtrooms cannot lead this party or this country. We need a president and a candidate who will actually help our base solidify and attract independent voters into our party. So those are four of the five answers to that question about Donald Trump. We didn't show Vivek Ramaswamy. He didn't answer the question. He attacked the moderators instead. So, Charlie Sykes, let me begin this conversation with you. In a parallel universe, there were three, four even candidates up there who could be a strong Republican nominee in the pre-Trump world. But as I said, they all trail him, if you look at national polls or even in these early state polls, by 30, 40 points. So what did we gather from last night? Yeah, this is a surreal moment. I mean, I think we need to pull back for the reality check that,

you know, we are at a moment now where the former president of the United States is on trial for more than 90 felony accounts and fraud and fraud allegations, refuses to show up to any of the debates, and it barely registers as an issue. And he is up by 30 points. So what you saw last night was almost a, it was a, you know, going through the motions of the debate as if it was going to make a difference. The only thing that's at stake now is who is going to be in second place, who will be the last person standing before Donald Trump clinches this nomination. But it is just an amazing moment that Donald Trump has made the calculation that he doesn't need to explain any of those things. He doesn't need to answer. He doesn't need to be on the

stage. And the RNC basically is completely powerless. So what you saw was a group of folks that that are running against Donald Trump, but have not yet figured out how to do it, which is really remarkable when you consider all of the things that are on the plate for Donald Trump. This is a man who's been found liable for rape. This is a man who is facing charges for violating the Espionage Act, who tried to overthrow the government, who is sitting in a New York courtroom because his entire business empire is based on fraud. And yet these Republican candidates cannot figure out how to run against him. So it's an extraordinary moment. Yeah, they didn't mention anything you just laid out very easily.

We didn't hear last night. We did hear Governor Christie say this guy's going to be in a courtroom all year next year. I don't think he should be our nominee, but didn't get specific on taking nuclear secrets and documents back to his beach club, attempting to overturn an election, shaking the foundation of democracy. Didn't hear any of that. So, Jen Palmieri, you were at the Trump rally nearby. Some glancing blows, I think, at some of the candidates running against him. What else did you hear last night? I mean, mostly it was a standard fare. You heard about Shifty Schiff. You heard about Rhonda St. Demonius. He referred to he did not address Nikki Haley by name. He called her bird brain.

But the only real acknowledgement that there was a debate was him saying there is a debate someplace else. I'm on stage here in front of tens of thousands of cheering people. And that's better. There were not tens of thousands, as you might imagine, Willie, there were not tens of thousands of people in Hialeah last night. The capacity was five thousand. Now, it was a good sized crowd. I saw that Ron DeSantis, his team tweeted a part of the crowd, a part of the stadium that was not that was not filled. But, you know, there is not not one person on that stage last night could attract a crowd. That's a fraction of what we saw turn out for Trump and Hialeah last night.

But the the team, it's interesting. The team did seem to want to take the debate somewhat seriously, at least acknowledge it. They had like what they called a spin room, which was really just which was a bunch of Trump supporters standing in front of us. And like they let us talk to campaign officials while Trump supporters were watching us. And they wanted to acknowledge the debate. They didn't really hit people. They just said they didn't feel that he needed to debate here. They said that Trump would definitely debate Biden. But the thing that came that was clear after talking to some of these Trump folks was they don't know what to do about abortion.

You know, they saw what happened on Wednesday night or excuse me, on Tuesday night and talked to me about a moderated stance. And I, you know, quote, I'm using air quotes on that on abortion, you know, something like maybe a 15 week ban. But as I noted, well, that that didn't work in Virginia. So what are you all going to do? And I feel like that's that's something they really don't have an answer to. They're not worried about the primary, but they don't have an answer to that. Yeah. To Jen's point, two topics. They just can't get their arms around Donald Trump and abortion. The Republican presidential hopefuls grappled with the party's position on abortion rights following overwhelming victories for reproductive freedom and women's health across the country in Tuesday's elections.

The five candidates on stage could not agree on how the party should best handle the issue, including Governor Ron DeSantis, who signed a sixweek abortion ban in Florida. You got to work from the bottom up. You got to do a better job on these referenda. I think of all the stuff that's happened to the pro-life cause, they have been caught flat-footed on these referenda, and they have been losing the referenda. A lot of the people who are voting for the referenda are Republicans who would vote for a Republican candidate.

So you got to understand how to do that. This is a personal issue for every woman and every man. I am unapologetically pro-life, not because the Republican Party tells me to be, but because my husband Michael was adopted and I had trouble having both of my children. So I'm surrounded by blessings. Having said that, when you look post-Roe, a wrong was made right. They took it out of the hands of unelected justices, and they put it in the hands of the people. And now we're seeing states

vote. And what I'll tell you is, as much as I'm pro-life, I don't judge anyone for being pro-choice, and I don't want them to judge me for being pro-life. So when we're looking at this, there are some states that are going more on the pro-life side. I welcome that. There are some states that are going more on the pro-choice side. I wish that wasn't the case, but the people decided. But when it comes to the federal law, which is what's being debated here, be honest. It's going to take 60 Senate votes, a majority of the House, and a president to sign it. So no, we haven't had 60 Senate votes in over 100 years. We might have 45 pro-life senators. So no Republican president can ban abortions any more than a Democrat president can ban these state laws. So let's

find consensus. Let's agree on how we can ban late-term abortions. Let's make sure we encourage adoptions and good quality adoptions. Let's make sure we make contraception accessible. Let's make sure that none of these state laws put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty for getting an abortion. Let's focus on how to save as many babies as we can and support as many moms as we can and stop the judgment. We don't need to divide America over this issue anymore. We need a 15-week federal limit. Three out of four Americans agree with a 15-week federal limit. Three out of four Americans agree with a 15-week limit. 47 out of 50 countries in Europe agree with a 15-week limit. I would challenge both Nikki and Ron

to join me at a 15-week limit. I trust the people of this country, state by state, to make the call for themselves. Now, that's going to lead to a lot of divergence. In Oklahoma, you can't get an abortion unless the life of the mother is at risk. In my home state of New Jersey, it goes up to nine months that you get an abortion. I find that morally reprehensible. But that is what the people of our state have voted for. And we should not short circuit that process until every state's people have the right to weigh in on it.

OK, what I find morally reprehensible, Jen, is talking about women having abortions in the ninth month, which Chris Christie repeatedly does. It's the most ridiculous argument out there. And it's it's dishonest, to say the least. So to this issue, though, instead of getting into an argument about the fact that that doesn't happen, here we are with Joe Biden going against the Republicans, the frontrunner Donald Trump and the other Republicans trying to beat him in a primary who can't win on abortion and they can't agree on Donald Trump. Nikki Haley calling Donald Trump a person who said that somebody who gets an abortion should be punished was the right president at the right time. The problem is

authenticity. The problem is how can they be believable when they are working within a framework that was set up by Donald Trump, which means standing by an entire environment of lies. I mean, it is it is remarkable. I mean, it's such a I mean, Charlie said it's surreal. I mean, it is that that whole the whole debate within the debate that goes on in the Republican Party, where they act as if Donald Trump isn't there. And these candidates like last night, they were going with such precision on each other's records and who had a whose website said what about, you know, some issue at what time on China. But ignoring Trump, thinking that there's that it's going to matter who the second place finisher is in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina. The theory is that is going to matter. And we just haven't seen any

evidence that who that second place finisher is, is going to matter. And when I was in Hialeah last night talking to Trump supporters that are there, they have no awareness that there even is a debate last night. You know, they just there's not even any there's just there's just no not any thought that's given to the to the primary. But for both, Mika, for both Trump and his primary opponents, they really don't know what to do about abortion. Nikki Haley had a lot of word salad about, you know, trying to sound as if she was moderate. But she did not articulate a position at all except to say it would be difficult for Congress to actually pass a ban. But she didn't say she wouldn't sign it. She didn't say she supported bans when she was governor of her state.

And then when I talked to Trump campaign folks last night, they, too, talked about, you know, having a more presenting a more moderate view on abortion. But no one can articulate what that is. And if you want to say that's a 15 week ban, Virginia, that's what the Republicans in Virginia won on. And they lost big. So and then and then I think the thing for Biden that, you know, for in terms of how this affects 2024 is we're not really sure what's going to be happening at that, you know, a year from now. But what we saw on Tuesday was a lot of voters turned out to vote for Democrats on an issue other than the economy. Right. That's what we saw in the midterms of 2022. That's what we saw in 23, that these other issues, in this case, it was abortion. You know, it may have been concerns about democracy as well. We don't know. But people are willing to turn out and vote in big numbers for issues other than, you know, for things other than just the economy.

And Jonathan, to that point, the 15 week ban is supposed to be sort of the the happy medium for a lot of people like Governor Glenn Youngkin of Virginia. And they got wiped out in Virginia. Same if you look at the state of Ohio, Republicans voting in support of abortion rights that they may not agree with necessarily, but saying it's none of my business. So we ought to put that in the Constitution in the state of Ohio. So obviously, Democrats energized by this issue. They're going to make it a big focus that in democracy for 2024. How is the Biden White House, according to your reporting, looking at what happened on Tuesday to pull it forward for another year?

Yeah, certainly Tuesday, a big night for Democrats. Not quite clear what it means for President Joe Biden in his reelection bid. You know, certainly there are his team is going to continue to make abortion a central piece of what they talk about next year. The president himself has said he's not always the most personally comfortable talking about it. A lot of his surrogates will. The vice president has really stepped up on this particular issue. But they think this next race, and of course, every reelection is inherently a referendum on the incumbent. And in this case, it will probably be the economy in a lot of ways.

But it won't just be that, especially if it is Donald Trump coming out of the Republican field, which it certainly looks like it will be. His criminal trials will also dominate the political landscape next year. And then, of course, there's the abortion plank, too. So, Charlie Sykes, if next year's race is about Trump and abortion, that's really good for Joe Biden. If it's about Joe Biden, maybe a little less good for his reelection bid. What is your read as to what we have seen this week, particularly on the abortion issue and how it can shape the contours of 2024? No, you're absolutely right about this. I mean, Donald Trump, if Donald Trump is on the ballot, this election becomes a referendum on Donald Trump, which is good news for Joe Biden. Look,

the abortion issue is just not going away. I mean, this was one of the big questions of the week. Has it lost its salience? Has it lost its ability to turn out voters? And is there a sweet spot? Is a 15-week ban, is that going to be, is that going to crack the code? I think that what we learned this week is that voters look at a 15-week ban and they don't focus on the number of weeks. They focus on the idea of a ban. They focus on the idea that you are trying to take away abortion rights. And this is kind of, this is why a lot of Republicans, I think, are a little bit freaked out because they're looking at this going, we thought that this was the one compromise that would poll well. If it didn't work in Virginia, it's not going to work nationally.

Donald Trump is going to try to finesse this issue. He's going to try to portray himself as a moderate dealmaker. But the reality is that we would not be having this debate except for Donald Trump. On the one hand, he is saying, I am the one who gave you the Supreme Court that overturned Roe versus Wade. We would not be having any of these debates if it were not for Donald Trump. So he wants to own the end of Roe versus Wade and yet somehow portray himself as the moderate. I think it's going to be difficult. And I think this is going to be one of the real battle battlegrounds, whether or not Donald Trump

is going to be able to skate away from that. And I don't think he's going to be able to. Charlie Sykes and Jen Palmieri, thank you both very much for your analysis this morning. And still ahead on Morning Joe, one of the candidates on stage last night, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, will join the conversation. Also ahead, the latest out of the Middle East and amid new negotiations to free hostages being held in Gaza by Hamas and new U.S. strikes in response to the recent attacks on American bases by Iranian proxies. We'll talk to retired Navy Admiral James Stavridis about all of that. Plus, we'll be joined by two Biden administration officials, National Security Council

spokesman John Kirby and White House Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. They'll be our guests this morning. But first, Ivanka Trump testifies that her father's civil fraud trial in New York will go over her day in court. We're back in one minute. Ivanka Trump testified in her dad's New York civil fraud trial, which is exciting because now I can complete my set of Trump courtroom sketch trading cards. Those are nice. Ivanka Trump took the stand yesterday as the last family member ordered to testify in the New York $250 million civil fraud trial. Unlike her brothers and father, Ivanka is not a defendant in this case.

She left the Trump organization in 2017 to work at the White House, and a judge ruled the statute of limitations to charge her has lapsed. But she was still ordered to take the stand as a witness. Ivanka testified she was not involved in producing her father's financial statements while working at the company. The attorney general's office says top organization employees would falsify records to inflate Donald Trump's wealth and to receive favorable financial deals. The judge in the case already has ruled the company committed fraud. Trump maintains he did nothing wrong. NBC News is reporting Ivanka was largely evasive with

her answers on the stand, often responding with the statement, I don't recall, when she was asked about financial documents. New York Attorney General Letitia James discussed the testimony after leaving the courthouse. Ivanka Trump was cordial. She was disciplined. She was controlled. And she was very courteous. But her testimony raises some questions with regards to its credibility, which will be a question for the finder of fact. is, is that based on the evidence, the documentary evidence, she clearly was involved in negotiating and securing loans, favorable loans for the benefit of the Trump organization, for Mr. Trump and her brothers and for herself. Join us now, former litigator and MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin. She was in the courtroom at yesterday's trial. OK, Lisa, so perhaps not as much flash and fire

as Donald Trump when he testified, even Don Jr. or Eric. And we should underline that Ivanka is not a defendant in this case, just a witness. So walk us through yesterday. What was it like in the room? The room was relatively calm because Ivanka, as a witness, was placid. She was comfortable. She was confident. And she gave the appearance of being cooperative, despite saying she didn't recall again and again and again. Notwithstanding that, I thought the attorney general did a good job of establishing an overall narrative that Ivanka Trump could not dispute or disagree with. And it sort of goes like this. Nobody else would lend to Donald Trump. The private wealth management group at Deutsche Bank would. And they gave him interest rates that he liked.

But in exchange for two things, a personal guarantee and net worth minimum of at least two point five billion dollars, as demonstrated by his statements of financial condition. And that was critical for Deutsche Bank, which at the beginning was very happy to establish a relationship with this very prominent real estate family, the Trumps. But even Deutsche Bank had a limit. By 2016, Trump wanted to borrow more money from Deutsche Bank, unsecured, went all the way up to the president of the bank. And Rosemary Vlaebach, who was the family's

private banker, ended up sending Ivanka a very apologetic note saying, we just couldn't make an exception in this case, Willie. So Ivanka, she's in the White House by 2017 as an advisor, along with her husband, Jared Kushner, to the president. The sons are running the company. So what exactly, in terms of this case, the civil fraud case, what is her role? Her role is in negotiating the loans and the terms of those loans for two projects in particular, the Doral Golf Course and the old post office property in Washington, D.C. That's a government property that we know as the Trump International Hotel, D.C. That's no longer leased by the Trumps. They infamously sold it for $375 million last year. But she was the spearheader of that project

from inception to fruition. And that means everything from negotiating with over 20 government agencies about the Trumps bid for that property to being involved in all of the loan terms. And that's really what the attorney general wanted to establish yesterday, was that relationship with Deutsche Bank and what their conditions of lending were. So you've been in the room, Lisa, for all this testimony for the former president of the United States,

his three children, that's behind us now. In some total, was this good for the Trump family? Was it bad for the Trump family to have those four witnesses on the stand? I think on balance, it was bad for the Trump family to have those four witnesses on the stand? I think on balance it was bad for the Trump family. But I will caveat that saying we expect three of those four Trumps to come back. Right. Don and Eric will be witnesses in their father's case in chief. I expect that the former president will be back.

And the reason is cross-examination really is always limited to the scope of what the direct examination is. You can't go beyond that for the most part. That means his lawyers want to elicit testimony from all three of those male Trumps that goes beyond what the attorney general was interested in. And so they will bring them back to afford them, as Chris Kice complained, the latitude that they think the former president and maybe future president, as Kice reminded the judge, should be afforded to explain himself and what it was that he was doing without intent. John. So, Lisa, you just

hinted at it that we're going to probably hear from some of these Trumps again. Give us your assessment so far as to what the prosecution did. Ivanka Trump is supposedly their last witness. And then what we think we'll hear from the defense going going forward, what are their main arguments going to be? You know, I think the main arguments, let's take the second one first. I think the main arguments are going to be nobody intended for this to happen for a variety of reasons. And they will say they were entitled to rely on their accountants and their lawyers. They will also say that they disclaimed the accuracy of those financial statements in a clause within them that basically tells anybody receiving them, you should do your own due

diligence to assure yourself of the accuracy of the information they're in. And Trump in particular is fixated on what he calls this worthless statement clause. But John, going back to the beginning of your question, do I think that the attorney general established what it was before them? Yes, I absolutely do. Their task here was to show that the Trumps not only perpetuated a year's long fraud in terms of Trump's statements of financial condition, but that they did so intentionally and aided by other people with intent like Jeff McConaughey and Allen Weisselberg, who's also a defendant here. Former litigator Lisa Rubin, our eyes and ears inside the courtroom throughout this trial. other people with intent like Jeff McConaughey and Alan Weisselberg, who's also a defendant here. Former litigator Lisa Rubin, our eyes and ears inside the courtroom throughout this trial and with more to come. Lisa, thanks so much today. Good to see you coming up. The Pentagon striking

back at targets in Syria as American forces continue to come under attack in the region. Retired four star Navy Admiral James Stavridis joins our conversation straight ahead on Morning Joe. I would tell President Biden with great clarity, if you want to stop the 40-plus attacks on military personnel in the Middle East, you have to strike in Iran. If you want to make a difference, you cannot just continue to have strikes in Syria on warehouses. You actually have to cut off the head of the snake, and the head of the snake is Iran and not simply their proxies. In order for us to have a powerful response from America, we have to be in a position of strength. As president of the United States, my foreign policy is simple. You cannot negotiate with evil. You have to destroy it. We need to go and take out their infrastructure that they are using to make those strikes with so they can never do it again.

Iran responds to strength. You punch them one and you punch them hard and they will back off. But what we don't need is Biden falling all over himself to get back in the Iran deal, him giving $6 billion to get five hostages home, him telling Netanyahu now that he needs a pause or a ceasefire. We don't need him going and sitting there tiptoeing around Iran because he thinks they're going to do something. You don't respond to an enemy and a terrorist with fear. You respond with strength. When you do that, that's when the world pays attention. And that's when Iran stops. As commander in chief, I am not going to put our troops in harm's way unless you're willing to defend them with everything you have. Biden has them out there.

They're sitting ducks. He's doing glancing blows. That's just inviting more attacks from the Iranians. I would say you harm a hair on the head of an American service member, and you are going to have hell to pay. We are not just going to sit there and let our service members be sitting ducks. And that's true whether it's Iran or whether it's any country on the world. We have to be strong and we have to defend the people who defend us. Meanwhile, the United States did launch an

airstrike on a weapons storage facility in Syria being used by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other groups. It's according to a statement from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who said the strike was in response to those recent attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria. There have been 41 attacks in total since October 17th, which mostly have been one-way drone and rocket strikes launched at U.S. military bases by groups believed to have links to Iran. A senior defense official tells NBC News

the retaliatory strike is designed to, quote, send a clear message to Iran that we hold it accountable. And America expects Iran to direct its proxies to stop attacking. Join us now. Former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired four star Navy Admiral James Stavridis. He's the chief international analyst for NBC News. Admiral, great to have you with us in studio. I want to get your reaction to some of the answers we heard there last night. I was watching you watch that as somebody who has commanded ships like the carrier group that we have now. Not too far there from where all the military action is. Sort of casually on a debate stage suggesting just attack Tehran, just cut off the head of the snake, go get Iran. What's your reaction to that? Well, it's always easy to roll out a talking point like, yeah, let's just go bomb Tehran, the capital of Iran. OK, what happens next? What do we do if there is a massive response?

What do we do if one hundred and fifty thousand missiles go from Lebanon to strike Tel Aviv? You need to think through next steps. So my take would be, yeah, we need to be strong. We need to move forces. And as we say in the military, set the table for heavy duty combat to carrier strike groups, squadrons of those F-15 strike eagles you just saw, 2000 on USS Bataan. Believe me, Lloyd Austin has all the force he needs there. Tehran knows it. Let's work up the ladder of vertical escalation. Let's go for those nose punches first before we try rolling into downtown Tehran. That's very dangerous, very high risk. You better have a follow on plan. I didn't hear any of that last night. So, Admiral, what is the appropriate response? We had a couple of F-15s

go in and take out this weapons storage facility in eastern Syria to 41 attacks on American troops on bases in Iraq and Syria. Drones. They say the damage was very limited. Some some of our servicemen and women reporting some TBI and things like that. What is an appropriate response to those attacks? I think what you just saw is appropriate for the moment. What then can come is, for example, a massive cyber attack taking out the Iranian economic infrastructure. You could go after maritime platforms in the Arabian Gulf where Iran generates oil and gas revenues. You could go after Iranian port facilities. You could go after their ships at sea. You've got a long way to go on that ladder of vertical escalation, Willie, before you are talking about bombing downtown Tehran.

What is the calculus, do you think, Admiral, from Tehran's point of view? They have all these proxy groups, obviously Hamas, Hezbollah to the north, talking about the Houthi rebels going after American military bases. How far really is Iran willing to escalate this before they do draw a much bigger response from the United States? Yeah, that's the big question. And what we need to do is recognize the Iranians view themselves as inheritors of the Persian empire. They really want to extend their influence throughout the Middle East, vastly from Tehran to the Mediterranean Sea. So we've got to meet them face to face with our allies, partners and friends in that region. And that's what we're doing. We team with the Israelis against them. We team with the Saudis

against them. We team with UAE against them. We move our forces as necessary to stop their individual attacks. I think that's smart strategy. And that's what we're seeing by the administration. John. Admiral, elsewhere in Israel, there's been some debate about pauses and some new reporting I think that's smart strategy, and that's what we're seeing by the administration. John? Admiral, elsewhere in Israel, there's been some debate about pauses. There's some new reporting this morning that suggests that Hamas will be willing to let a number of haches go, an exact number unclear, but a dozen or so, if Israel were to have a more substantial pause. And they're asking for about three days. Israel, to this point anyway, the government has suggested that's too long. Netanyahu has said they'd only do an hour or two. They fear that a three-day pause would allow Hamas to really rearm and strike back at them. Let me get your analysis

here about just how tricky, though, this is. Ceasefire versus pause. A pause, how long? And what do you make of the three-day offer Hey, let's let's think of it as running on a spectrum, Jonathan, that goes from a all out ceasefire pencils down. We all stop shooting anything. We all stop military operations indefinitely. That's a ceasefire. That's not going to happen for reasons that both sides are following. At the other end of that spectrum are tiny little teeny weeny an hour here, three days here. Let's figure out where we want to be on that spectrum. I would argue the hostages lives matter. They matter deeply.

So we've got to be able to kind of move the rheostat, move the dial substantially so that we can get some of them released. But we can't allow Hamas to fully rearm, resupply themselves, conduct serious command and control. All of that has to be stopped. So we need to think about this, Jonathan, as a spectrum. I would argue at this stage of the negotiation, putting hostage lives toward the top matters. And in the big picture, believe me, Israel is going to continue this campaign. Admiral, I'm curious how you how you'd characterize how President Biden and Tony Blinken are navigating the relationship, not with Israel. They stand with Israel, but with Benjamin Netanyahu. Is he an honest partner? And if you were advising, what would your advice be on dealing with him

and holding him accountable while at the same time giving him support? I think at this point, we ought to be following that classic leadership dictum of criticize in private, support in public. And your father, Mika, was a master of this. You have to know when to close the door, take the gloves off and say, look, we, the United States, have leverage here. And we do. We are supplying them enormous levels of not only diplomatic and political support, but real military support in the region. That matters to the Israelis. We ought to be unafraid to close

the door and roll that in front of Bibi Netanyahu. He better start listening because I would say the patience of the administration is not infinite. Yeah, we've seen some cracks in that already. Before I let you go, Admiral, I've got to ask about Ukraine, which, of course, came up at the debate again last night. We heard some of the candidates on stage sort of getting a little weak-kneed about the support. We've heard some of that from Congress as well. Do you have concerns that the American focus on Israel now takes away from its commitment to Ukraine? Yes, I do. And thank you for even bringing it up. It's hard to hear the word Ukraine on many networks these days. It's important we continue. That is a fight that matters for the United States. It matters for democracy. It matters for Europe. It matters for

the global economy. And above all, it matters showing Putin that he cannot succeed in this kind of truly evil, diabolical scheme to conquer a neighbor. We need to stand against that. Willie, I'm confident on this one. The center will hold ultimately, and we will support the Ukrainians. We did hear, I should say, Governor Christie, Ambassador Haley make very strong cases yesterday, last night through continued support for Ukraine and why it's important into our national interest. Retired four-star Admiral James DeVritas, great to have you as always, sir. Thank you for being here. Thanks, Willie. Coming up, a major development in that actors strike. We'll go through a tentative deal that could end the work stoppage and help to revive an industry that's been paralyzed for months now. Details straight

ahead on Morning Joe. And finally, three pandas from the Smithsonian National Zoo were returned to China today, packed in a special crate on a FedEx plane, or as Southwest calls it, Economy Plus. And that it is the end of an era for panda diplomacy. Yesterday, the Smithsonian National Zoo and panda lovers said their emotional goodbyes as the beloved bears left Washington, D.C. and headed for China aboard a FedEx Boeing 777 called the Panda Express. The two parent pandas, father Tian Tian and mother Mei Zhang, arrived in the U.S. 23 years ago. Their cub, Suo Chi Chi, was born in 2020. This will now mark the first time in decades the zoo will be without pandas, which have been a fixture there since 1972, when China gifted two pandas to the National Zoo as a gesture of goodwill during President Richard Nixon's administration. While the zoo is hopeful pandas can return to the U.S. soon, there has been no word from Chinese officials on a renewed lease. As it stands, there are only four pandas that remain in the U.S.,

two adults and two cubs at Zoo Atlanta. They are set to return to China sometime next year. Willie? We leased the pandas we should have bought. We should have bought. New this morning, Hollywood actors are now heading back to work. SAG-AFTRA, the union that represents tens of thousands of Hollywood actors, announced a tentative agreement with major TV and movie studios that could mark the end of a historic 118-day strike. The deal comes over a month after Hollywood writers ended their strike. The details of the agreement were not immediately released. Actors have been calling for similar demands like better pay, bigger cuts of streaming profits, and safeguards on the use of artificial intelligence in the industry. Tomorrow,

the deal will go to the union's national board for approval, and hopefully we all can put this behind us. Still ahead, Peter Baker of the New York Times will join us with his analysis of Tuesday's election results and what they mean for President Biden and his party. Plus, former Governor Chris Christie will be our guest. Did his performance at last night's debate change things? Morning Joe will be right back. 52 past the hour. President Biden today is expected to visit Belvedere, Illinois, where United Auto Workers scored a big win with their new contract. The president is set to meet with UAW President Sean Fain and union workers to highlight a recent agreement between the union and the big three automakers that ended a weeks long strike. The deal with the auto companies included a 25 percent general pay increase over the course of a four year contract, increased

retirement benefits and more paid leave. Afterward, Biden will head to Chicago for a fundraisers. These the strikes and meetings with workers, the big three with the car makers. It's gone well for Joe Biden on many levels. Jonathan Lemire, what are his plans in the weeks to come in light of the big win? Not last night, but the night before? Yeah, it's been a tricky political month for President Biden, particularly after the terror attacks in the Middle East.

But this year, the UAW strike and its resolution, an unambiguous win. The president, you know, deemed himself perhaps the most pro-labor president in decades. He, of course, visited a picket line in Michigan a few weeks ago, stood with the workers, played a role behind the scenes. Not too much. Let the workers in the big three negotiate themselves. But certainly delighted with the results, he said so as much. And we'll certainly hear from him today when he does head to Illinois to talk about that. And look, there are other labor disputes perhaps on the horizon in other industries.

We'll see how this White House navigates that. But this was a win for both his economic plan, the electric vehicles plan, and, of course, his ability to stand with workers, something that really matters to him, as he tries, Mika, to get some of those workers to turn out for him next November.