Morning Joe - Morning Joe 12/11/23

Episode Date: December 11, 2023

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

Don't forget, though, he's going on on Monday with the judge's gag order still in place. So he can't speak about certain things. He has to be so careful. That is so unconstitutional, in my opinion. We have First Amendment rights. We have rights as attorneys, Sixth Amendment rights. And those are all being violated. And he still wants to take the stand, even though my advice is at this point, you should never take the stand with a gag order. But he is so firmly against what is happening in this court. Trump lawyer Alina Habah last week previewing the former president's testimony in the civil fraud trial against his business organization. Now it appears Trump will be a

no show. We'll show you what his legal team is saying about the last minute reversal and who will take the stand. Plus, the latest from the Middle East, Israel continues to strike what it calls Hamas strongholds in southern Gaza, an area where the U.N. has warned about dire humanitarian conditions. It comes amid new reporting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not only knew about Qatar's monthly payments of millions of dollars to Hamas, he encouraged it. We'll get analysis on that damning report from retired four-star Navy Admiral James DeVritas and President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. Also ahead, we will preview Volodymyr Zelensky's visit to Capitol Hill tomorrow. The Ukrainian president is expected to meet with new House Speaker Mike Johnson

as Congress fights over funding for the war-torn country. And we have Steve Kornacki here at the big board breaking down the new polling from Iowa in just moments, with just over a month until the caucus is there. Plus, an update to a story we brought to you on Friday. The Texas Supreme Court is blocking an abortion for a woman whose fetus has a fatal diagnosis. Kay Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant, was warned by her doctor and multiple doctors that if she carries this pregnancy to term, it will likely jeopardize her health and future fertility. Despite this, the Texas attorney general asked the state Supreme court to step in arguing Cox does not meet the criteria for a medical exception. Today is Monday, December 11th, and believe it or not, it is 2023,

not 1923. And that's where we're going to begin this morning. This is an unsettling and all too common story. Once again, an aging white man faces indictments, is accused of covering up an affair, faced impeachment, and still his wrecking ball use of political power continues with brutal consequences on the lives of women. Sounds familiar. I'm actually not talking about Donald Trump. This time, it's another far right Republican who considers it a compliment to be called Trumpy. After all, this man, according to Reuters, tried to sue Joe Biden over 50 times on issues including immigration and gun rights and a ton of other garbage. I'm talking, of course, about Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Paxton is so desperate to mimic Trump, so desperate for Trump's support that he led a lawsuit in 2020 to

challenge the results of that year's election in Trump's favor. The Supreme Court, of course, quickly threw that out. But that's how desperate he is. The man is so desperate to mimic Trump that he behaves in a cruel, brutal fashion and won't back down until a ill woman is physically and emotionally destroyed. That woman, Kate Cox, and her health is in danger because of Ken Paxton, who is using laws against abortion. Thank you, Donald Trump, Leonard Leo and many others to make sure her suffering is the most it can be. We got to wake up. We need to wake the hell up. This country has lost so much already. Women have lost so much. Whether you're a Democrat or Republican, a man or a woman, please look at the face of this moment in time. Kate Cox could be your daughter, your sister, your wife,

you. Kate Cox is 31 and needs an abortion. Her physical and emotional well-being is in peril. Her developing fetus has trisomy 18, a rare chromosomal disorder that's likely to cause stillbirth. That's where she gives birth to a dead baby. Or her baby will barely survive the birth and then will die shortly after. She will watch her newborn, Kate, will suffer, gasp for air, and then die. There are also other risks. That's the reason she needs an abortion of bringing this pregnancy to term, including making it impossible for Kate to ever have a baby again and to sterilize her. Kate needs that abortion now to protect her own health too. She's been to the ER four times for severe cramps, leaking fluid, and elevated vital signs, according to her lawyer. And then of course, there is the mental anguish. We're going through the loss of a child. There's no

outcome here that I take home my healthy baby girl, you know, so it's hard, you know. So why isn't this woman in the OR right now getting the life-saving health care she needs? Because the Texas attorney general, not a doctor, not a scientist, an aging white far-right Republican male, believes he knows what should happen with Kate's body. He would prefer that she carry her non-viable fetus to term. Consequences be damned. That's Ken's choice. Ken has choices. Kate does not.

Ken is choosing to block Kate's health care once again by threatening legal action against any doctor who performs Kate's life-saving abortion. Legal action against the hospital where the procedure happens, he wants to do that as well. So for Kate, a desperate mother in need of health care, the reason her body may lose its ability to have more children, the reason her young children have a sick, suffering mother, the reason her very life may be absolutely shattered and in danger, is because Ken Paxton is driving home the reality that we all must face.

That because Trump and his cronies were able to destroy Roe, something he loves to brag about, we have no rights to protect ourselves in a situation like this. I think forcing me to continue the pregnancy and the pain and suffering put me through the risks of continuing the pregnancy, the risk of childbirth again, especially given how my last two went, I think it's cruel. We have no right to save ourselves from suffering. Our daughters are growing up in a world where they will be scared to get pregnant. They will fear that people like Ken Paxton will have more of a say in their healthcare decisions than their doctors. They will fear that they will suffer or even die when attempting to bring a life into this world.

This isn't a fear we have about something that might happen. Let's all freak out about what might happen. No, this is where we are right now. And this Monday morning, I pray for Kate Cox and the many other women who will inevitably be in the same situation. I'm also praying that we all step up. You may be a Republican. You may have voted for Trump thinking this all isn't so bad. It's worse. Wake up and consider voting with Kate in mind in the next presidential election. The choices may not be perfect. They may be far from perfect. I get that. What we're trying to save, though, is the ability to have choices and options in this country and to make those choices in a country that is a democracy. Let's bring in former U.S. attorney and MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance, former aide to the George W. Bush White House and State Department's Lee Jordan, the host of way too early White House

bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, and NBC News national affairs analyst John Heilman. And we're going to have those polls, which backs up my extreme concerns this morning. But legally, Joyce Vance, Kate Cox is running out of time. She thought that she thought she had a path to getting the health care she needs. Yes. So this case is now sitting with the Texas Supreme Court. They have put on hold the lower court's order that would have let her get a life-saving, potentially life-saving abortion for her. She does not know when the Texas Supreme Court will rule.

They can take their time. In fact, they could take so much time that they make it impossible for her to obtain health care. So this is now what the world looks like in Texas. Every woman in the middle of a dangerous pregnancy, the trauma of losing a child, has to ask a judge for permission to get medical care without knowing whether or not she'll receive it. And she can't leave the state of Texas because of SB8, the law that would make her husband or anyone else who helped her amenable to a lawsuit by a total stranger. In other words, this is not about health care. This is not about life or protecting life. This is about

punishing women. So this is there's so many other questions I have for you about precedent and what could happen around the country. But it does line up exactly with where the presidential politics stand right now. And I want to turn just for a moment to brand new polling out of Iowa on the Republican field for president. Joining us now from the big board, NBC News national political correspondent Steve Kornacki. Steve, what are the numbers show? Yeah, we're basically exactly almost exactly 35 days, almost a month until the Iowa caucuses. This what we're going to show you our brand new NBC News Des Moines Register poll. The Des Moines Register poll is taken by Ann Selzer. She is known as one of the best in the business and certainly the authority when it comes to polling on Iowa.

So let me show you these numbers. Republican side for the Iowa caucuses. We now have Donald Trump leading with an outright majority in Iowa, 51 percent. Ron DeSantis, a very distant second at 19. Nikki Haley, 16. Ramaswamy and Christie at four. We last polled Iowa in October, also with the Des Moines Register. Since then, look at this. Donald Trump's lead. He has added eight points to his total. DeSantis up a couple.

Haley, who had been moving flat. I think it's significant because in the month leading up to this poll, you had Ron DeSantis pick up the endorsement of the governor of Iowa, the endorsement of a key evangelical leader in Iowa, got a lot of press attention for completing a 99-county tour of Iowa, had a Fox News debate against Gavin Newsom in front of millions of Republican-leaning voters, and was part of that fourth Republican debate last week that Donald Trump wasn't in. So for all those things that we thought might be giving DeSantis a boost over the last month, it is Trump, despite not participating in the debates again, it's Trump who's made the

big gains. Trump who's moved to 51 percent in this Iowa poll. Just a couple other numbers we can show you behind this. These are evangelical voters in Iowa. Remember, Donald Trump finished third with this group in 2016 when he ran in Iowa and lost. Now he leads it overwhelmingly. Exact same number as what he gets overall. Evangelicals could make up two out of every three caucus goers in Iowa. That was the case the last time around. Where Trump really turns it on, though, it is first time caucus goers. This tends to be a younger group overall. Look at that. Sixty three percent of folks who say for the first time

they're going to go to a caucus are rallying behind Donald Trump. This is independence. Independents are a small share of the Iowa electorate, but I think it gets to the basic problem Nikki Haley has. Look how much better Nikki Haley does among independents. It's true in Iowa. It's true in New Hampshire. It is true in every poll we have seen. But in Iowa and in most of these Republican primary and caucus states, big exception being New Hampshire, independents are going to be outnumbered significantly by core Republicans. Haley has yet to show that she can make the inroads she needs with core Republicans. That is to say, Republicans who like Donald Trump.

She's yet to show she can make those inroads to be competitive. Also, in terms of enthusiasm, we asked folks, are you very, extremely enthusiastic about your choice? Trump, look at that, two to one, three to one advantage over his rivals. We asked folks, is your mind made up? Seventy seven out of 10 percent of Trump voters in Iowa say their minds are made up again, more than double that of any of his nearest rivals. And then we asked this question here. A lot of words. This is about electability and Republicans perception of it here. We've talked so much in 2023 about

Donald Trump's trials. We will continue to talk about it in 2024. But we asked folks, can Donald Trump win the election regardless of his legal challenges? Now, nearly three out of four Republicans in Iowa say yes. Last month, that number wasn't even two out of three. Big jump there for Trump. We also said, hey, are Trump's legal challenges too much? They make it nearly impossible for him to win. 24 percent saying that again, that number was over 30 last month.

So all sorts of signs in this poll, Mika, showing that Donald Trump over the last month, last six weeks in Iowa has actually improved his position. And the last time we were this close to the caucuses again, just about a month away, that a Republican candidate had a lead anywhere near this size. You got to go all the way back to George W. Bush. The year was 2000. Bush won the caucuses. Bush won the nomination. NBC's Steve Kornacki, thank you very much for bringing those numbers just as they break this morning. We appreciate it. Elise Jordan, given given the rights of women or the lack thereof in this country right now due to the moves made by Donald Trump, Leonard Leo and his cronies. What do you make of these numbers? What is going on? And I understand this is Iowa we're talking about. But still, look at what's happening. You look at how in Iowa, this is a block of very conservative,

primarily evangelical voters who dominate the caucuses. And so for Donald Trump, what he did with the Supreme Court and the judges he appointed benefits him in Iowa. It's not until you get to other states and particularly New Hampshire is going to be more interesting, where you see where voters are more libertarian and they don't like the idea of doctors being able to not dictate the life-saving measures needed to perform medical care to patients, because this is a debate about health care at the end of the day and about personal liberty and personal freedom. And you're going to see that in the granite state come more to play and potentially be a little bit more of a factor. Yeah. As Steve noted, it's remarkable Trump's surge in popularity among evangelicals who were pretty skeptical of him back in 2016.

And now he's never been more popular with them. So John Hellman, yes, New Hampshire could be a little different. It's a different electorate than we see in Iowa. That's where I think the Haley camp thinks they'll fare better. We know Chris Christie has his long shot hopes pinned to New Hampshire as well. But as we look at these numbers, 51 to 19, in a state that Trump previously didn't do all that well, are we kidding ourselves to think this is even a race at all? This is just simply a foregone conclusion that Donald Trump will be the nominee. Who's we? I mean, I think it's been over for months. Yeah. You and I aren't in a different place about this. I, you know,

we want to, uh, it's democracy, right? We want to, we want to let these things play out. We have to suspend, uh, have a willing suspension of disbelief. We see these numbers, voters vote and things can change. And, but it's, it's not like we're sitting here. It's the date, I believe is December somethingth. I lost track of that completely. But we're in December now. The Iowa caucuses are a month away. It's not early still.

You can't make the argument it's early. There's a lot of yardage on the field. None of that's true. You know, we're not just in the fourth quarter here, but we're getting close to the two-minute warning in political terms. And there's not a sign anywhere. Again, you hear people occasionally say, well, things are tightening here, tightening there. Nikki Haley's got momentum here or there. Nikki Haley's got momentum in New Hampshire versus Ron DeSantis.

Donald Trump's lead over the field is vast and in some cases growing. This is the state that Donald Trump and his team have been most worried about. They have been spending their time. They've been spending a lot of time there. He's been in Iowa more than he's been in any other state. They've been spending money there. He's doing rallies there. And apparently it's having some effect because, you know, Trump is we've just seen him get stronger in this state rather than weaker.

And the number that Steve pointed to that Ann Sulzer's poll shows, this number that shows that the numbers are that the closer we get to Trump's trial date in Washington, D.C., in the insurrection case, the closer we get to that, the electability argument is fading in the Republican Party. He's not, it's not like people are waking up and going, hey, wow, Donald Trump's about to get back to be sitting in front of a jury. And Chris Christie says he's going to be convicted. Well, maybe he is going to be, but I'll tell you, Republican voters right now, the number that think that this is not

an issue, that it will not stop him from winning a general election against Joe Biden is getting smaller rather than larger. Uh-huh. So, and Republican voters who may have, may be in the hospital right now or have a wife in the hospital right now with a non-viable pregnancy that might kill her, Joyce Vance, I'll bring it back to this, I don't understand how they could be voting on any other issue given the state of affairs right now in Texas. I'm curious about the implications of the Kate Cox case in terms of how it could impact other women across the country. And also, if the Supreme Court allows her finally the lifesaving health care that she needs, the ability to have an abortion,

can she sue for pain and suffering? Are there options here? Do women have any options left? And that's the question, because right now the option is for every woman on her own to find the financial and emotional resources to file a lawsuit getting permission to have an abortion. In Texas, there's another case on the books where a group of women banded together to try to see if they could break through. That case is also on hold. And so, Mika, to your point, a lot of this comes down to the ballot box and not just who's elected president in the next election, but also in this post-Dobbs environment where every state creates its own rules for abortion, decisions about who will be in a state legislature, who the governor, who the attorney general will be, will become

critically important. We know that after the Dobbs decision where the Supreme Court took away Roe v. Wade, abortion became a rallying cry in elections. And with all due respect to Brother Heilman, whose political acumen I have great respect for, I think we're entering the Christmas season. Voters aren't yet focused by the first of the year. I think we'll see folks look at abortion like they did in some unusual places after Dobbs, Kansas, for instance, where voters who wanted to preserve the right to choice prevailed in an election unexpectedly. More recently in Ohio, I think this issue picks up and begins to resonate with voters as we enter 2024. All right. Former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance, thank you so much.

She is, of course, co-host of the fabulous Sisters in Law podcast, which you guys are going to need to go into overtime these days. Thank you so much. And coming up in just one minute, as Donald Trump seeks a return to power, a current and former European diplomats are voicing major concern that NATO could be gutted if he's reelected. Richard Haass and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Tavridis are standing by with how this could all play out. Plus, former Congressman Tom Suozzi will join us live in studio after launching his run for the House seat vacated by the ouster of George Santos. Also ahead, a deal like we've never seen before. We'll discuss Shohei Ohtani's record $700 million 10-year contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers. We're back in 60 seconds. All right. In just a moment, we're going to get to the staggering news about Benjamin Netanyahu

supporting the funding of Hamas. But first, the State Department has used an emergency authority to allow the sale of about 14,000 tank shells to Israel by passing a congressional review that is generally required for arms sale to foreign nations. The department notified congressional committees late Friday ahead of the sale, valued at more than $106 million. It's the first time since the State Department had invoked the emergency provision for an arms shipment to the Middle East since 2019, when the Trump administration provided arms to the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen over congressional objections.

Let's bring in former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired four-star Navy Admiral James Stavridis. He's chief international analyst for NBC News and President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. And Admiral, I'll just start with you on this issue. What do you make of it? Well, first and foremost, we ought to be deeply concerned about any kind of step back from NATO. That's really what's on my mind is the reports of Trump talking again about pulling the U.S. out. And I'll give you three reasons that's a terrible idea. Number one, Europe collectively represents the largest economy in the world when you put it all together and the second largest defense budget in the world. Pragmatic. Number two, we ought to be pretty concerned about Putin and what his reaction would be to this. Could he pick off smaller NATO nations, say Estonia, that has a significant Russian population?

And third and finally, Mika, the signal it sends to the world. You know, we correctly looked kind of bad when we pulled out of Afghanistan in terms of standing with our commitments. Can you imagine breaking a bedrock agreement, a treaty like the NATO treaty? It's been in force for decades. Talk about the signal to the world who wants to continue to do business with us diplomatically. It's a terrible idea. I agree with that. Catastrophic. Richard. Yeah, I'm just back from Asia and I spent time among other places in the capitals of two allies in Seoul and South Korea and Tokyo. And the biggest single issue on and off the agenda is just this. Can they count on the United States after November? And you were actually having debates

in places like South Korea, serious debates about whether they need to have nuclear weapons. One of the principal goals of the United States has been to stop the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. You now have our allies beginning to say, hey, if this individual becomes president, is he going to pull U.S. troops out of here? Is he going to basically hold us up to billions of dollars of payments? And can we count on the United States? So what Jim said about NATO, I actually think is not only true about Europe. We've got this worldwide alliance system that is the great comparative advantage of American foreign policy. And the idea that we would unilaterally dismantle it is beyond comprehension. Mika, you also introduced the question about the Middle

East and these arms sales. I would just say, I think we really need a serious conversation here because the Israelis are not listening to the entreaties of the United States about how to use military force carefully, how to distinguish between Hamas and Gaza. And the idea that we would be providing more arms unconditionally, I'll be honest with you, I just have big question marks about it. And I think the administration, unless it just wants to continue to be ignored, has to ask big questions.

Do we need to separate ourselves somewhat from Israel in the United Nations? We vetoed a resolution the other day. Do we need to start supporting resolutions that we're comfortable with, that are, say, critical of Israel? Do we need to start conditioning what arms we send or how those arms are going to be used? Do we need to start conditioning what arms we send or how those

arms are going to be used? Do we need to put on the table our own set of diplomatic initiatives? Because clearly this passive approach, it isn't having the desired effect. So I want to get both of your takes on this next story, which is it's too hard, it's difficult to understand. The New York Times reporting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu encouraged Qatar to send millions of dollars a month to Gaza, which helped prop up the Hamas government. According to the paper, which cites several people familiar with secret discussions between Qatari officials and Israel's Mossad intelligence agency, Netanyahu recently decided to continue allowing money to enter the territory, the money that goes to Hamas. The Times says this was a gamble for Netanyahu,

who thought a steady flow of money would maintain peace in Gaza and keep Hamas focused on governing, not fighting. The Times reports the payments were part of a string of decisions by Israeli leaders, all based on the fundamentally flawed assessment that Hamas was neither interested nor capable of a large scale attack. Qatar had hoped the money would fund humanitarian goals like paying government salaries in Gaza and buying fuel to keep a power plant running. Israeli intelligence officials now believe the money played a role in the success of October 7th,

the terrorist attacks. According to the paper, the donations allowed Hamas to divert some of its own budget toward military operations. We knew they could do this. It was the first thing Israel told us, that we can't give them money for humanitarian aid because they will use it for fuel for fuel for the war. Remember that? Netanyahu's office tells The Times multiple Israeli governments enabled money to Qatar, adding that Netanyahu has, quote, acted to weaken Hamas significantly.

Really, Admiral? I have so many questions this morning about Benjamin Netanyahu. I still don't understand why it took six to eight hours while women were being raped and tortured and family members dismembered and people taken hostage to get the help they need in a country as big as what, Massachusetts? I mean, a school shooting in Massachusetts, it takes 10 minutes to lock the school down, 15 to lock the town down, 20 to 30 to lock down the entire county or perhaps neighboring counties if there's a manhunt. I mean, this is crazy that they didn't get there and there's no answer. I know I'm on a different topic, but now we're finding that Benjamin Netanyahu was supportive of funding that ultimately went to Hamas. I'm curious,

how desperate is he to not, or was he, to not have a two-state solution to the point where, I don't know, it doesn't seem like he's very far removed from what happened on October 7th. It's shocking, to be honest, and clearly there is an enormous reckoning coming for Benjamin Netanyahu. It's not only your excellent points about the failures of his government, the failures of the Israeli defense forces, the Mossad, Shin Bet, all of the organizations that should have kept Israeli babies safe in their nurseries. That reckoning is coming. Secondly, the story we're on this morning, supplying funding to Hamas.

It was called a gamble. If so, that's the worst bet I can imagine a world leader ever making. And you see how it played out for him. And then third and finally, you didn't mention it, but credible reporting suggests a copy of the actual plans of the attack were in the hands of Israeli intelligence up to a year before the attack. There is a reckoning coming for this government and for Benjamin Netanyahu personally. And there should be. We had a spokeswoman for Netanyahu on the show Friday who wouldn't address that. Certainly didn't deny it either, though. Richard Haass, this sort of stunning reporting, it certainly does reveal Netanyahu's thinkings

about a two-state solution and lack of interest. My question to you, though, is how does he survive all this? How does he survive the idea that there was a failure that day, the slowness of the response, that the intelligence community knew a year in advance that something like this could happen. And now this, where he has to explain to the Israeli public, including some of whom whose loved ones are still being held hostage, that actually, yes, we're sending money to Hamas this whole time. So two points. One is this is not stunning. This is not shocking. This is all about Bibi Netanyahu supporting Hamas in the divide and conquer theory. He does not want a Palestinian state. He opposes a two-state solution. His coalition is premised on the idea of continuing

settlements, a one-state non-solution. So this is totally, totally of a piece for Bibi Netanyahu. And what he ignored, though, is one of the laws of the Middle East, is that the enemy of your enemy can still be your enemy. And so Israel is paying the price for his cynicism and his opposition to a Palestinian state. That said, I actually think, despite what a lot of the pundits are saying, Bibi Netanyahu hangs on longer than he should. There's only two ways to get rid of him. One is through a parliamentary reshuffle. Well, a lot of these guys are in bed with him.

They agree with him. They don't necessarily want the reckoning that the Admiral's talking about. Election? Israel's not going to have an election in the middle of a crisis. So Bibi Netanyahu has every incentive to maintain an intense, large war. Basically, no one wants to change horses midstream. And it's, again, it comes back to the first story, the Amikor Ram. It's one of the reasons the administration has to understand they are not dealing with someone who is acting in good faith with them and they have got to adjust their policy. I have not. I want to ask, I don't know, about Zelensky and NATO and Trump, but I just have to say I've not read a piece that has more BS in it than that New York Times piece in terms of everyone's explanations. It's like,

well, they were hoping that they would govern rather than fight. And they were hoping that this and that. It's like, Bibi Netanyahu wanted Hamas to be strong for a period of time because he wanted to be able to poison the idea of anybody having a real credible partner for a two-state solution. He does not believe in it, doesn't want it to happen, doesn't see it in his political interest. Now, that's incredible about it.

Just all of the explanations for this just seem like such garbage to me. To you, I ask, Zelensky coming again, desperately needs the money. I heard you say on way too early, man, we better give him the money. And you've got the world now, Zelensky saying, I desperately must have this money or we're going to do it where Ukraine is toast in this war. Number one. And you've got the world looking and saying, man, if Donald Trump gets elected president, they're seeing these polls and the fact that Trump's, if not the favorite, even neck and neck with Joe Biden, they're saying the first thing he's going to do is dump out of NATO. And the first people are going to feel that is going to be Vladimir Zelensky and the Ukrainians. Yeah, it is a frightening moment. And when you think about this optic of the president of Ukraine, you need to come to

Washington to sort of prop up what ought to be the most obvious set of military support in the in the modern history, given how cost effective it is to take out Vladimir Putin. It is a sad moment. And by the way, I think tying it together with aid to Israel, aid to the border, aid to Taiwan is actually smart because it kind of gives everyone something. And I support all of those actions. And I think most Americans would, John. So let's hope President Zelensky can really lean into this and and make some ground up. He is having a meeting Tuesday morning with the Senate, engineered by Mitch McConnell, who is a continuing strong supporter. I think ultimately the center will hold here in the Congress broadly and will get the aid. But boy, it shouldn't be this hard.

Certainly the White House is hoping this happens at least. But there is a fear, though. Yes, I mean, the Senate is believed to largely be on board, but there are enough holdouts in the House. It is not a sure thing. And if this were to fall apart, if this deal doesn't come through, the White House officials have told me not only will they run out of money by year's end to be able to send to Ukraine, they worry about the domino effect. We're already seeing a little bit of waffling from some other European allies in this, you know, who might say, well, if the United States is not going to back Ukraine, why should we? Well, wars have a time limit for Americans' intervention abroad. You watch support is

always gung-ho at the very beginning when we're in there helping support a cause that we believe is just. But then over time, you're watching that support go away. And that's what we're seeing right now. And I think it is only going to get worse, specifically with Ukraine, if there is not seeing some kind of progress or openness and willingness to negotiations is not seen in the near future, because at this point, Zelensky has really lost a large portion of the Republicans. Not just that, but he's also losing support at home. People compare him to Churchill all the time, but Churchill was ruthlessly honest. And the idea that Ukraine is going to somehow magically liberate all of its territory, it's increasingly hard to make the case.

That's why we should justify. We need to justify the thing. We need to save Ukraine. We need to preserve Ukraine. That ought to be the argument. I don't think you can win the argument that if you only give more aid, Russia is going to be ousted. I'd love to see Russia ousted. Ain't going to happen. I think we need to have a recasting of the conversation. Even so, Zelensky and Mike Johnson meeting. Have you ever seen a stature gap greater than that? Zelensky and Mike Johnson is almost like me and Stavridis in terms of stature gap. I don't even go there.

OK. Retired four-star Navy Admiral James Stavridis, thank you very much. Richard, stay with us if you can. We appreciate it. And still ahead on Morning Joe, after a congressional hearing on anti-Semitism on college campuses, now one university president is stepping down. What's going to be next? It was a pretty staggering hearing.

And there's a lot of fallout and a lot to talk about. We'll have more on that. Also still ahead, Hunter Biden's lawyer, Abby Lowell, will join us as the president's son faces a nine count federal indictment on tax related charges. And up next, a congressional comeback. Former Congressman Tom Suozzi, now officially the Democratic candidate for George Santos's seat, which will likely play a pivotal role in 2024. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Welcome back. 42 past the hour. Live look at the Capitol. Pretty shot this morning. The sun has yet to come up over Washington. The Republicans House majority has become even slimmer in recent weeks. And so each race next November is growing more important. That includes in New York, where some surprising GOP victories last year were pivotal in Republicans gaining control of the lower chamber.

Joining us now, former U.S. Congressman Tom Suozzi of New York. Last week, he was selected as the Democratic nominee in the upcoming February special election to replace recently ousted Republican George Santos. I don't even know where to begin. What happened? You left. You left. And what then happened with your seat? I want to even understand how that happened. And then secondly, do you kind of regret maybe not running again for Congress back when George Santos was in the picture? No, I don't have any regrets. I wanted to be the governor of New York State. And I regret that George Santos became a member of the United States Congress. It's been bad for all of us. What happened was, is that he went from being

someone who wasn't from the district, who didn't really know anybody, who didn't have any money that I beat by, I forget what it was, 12 points back in 2020 and never really encountered him. It was the middle of covid. And he adopted the stop the steal idea in November of 2020 and got the whole Trump hierarchy to get behind him. And he started raising money and building a network. And nobody was really paying attention. And he went from somebody who is a nobody, who had no attention, who had no infrastructure, that all of a sudden had an apparatus that hadn't existed before. And nobody paid attention from the press. Nobody paid attention from the Republican Party. Nobody really got much information on him from the Democratic Party. Let me ask you a functional question, Congressman. He's obviously been a huge story, right, over the course of from his time that he won to the time that he left. But now he's gone. And so as you imagine running in this district again, does it does he matter at all?

Is George Santos going to be part of any future campaign? And, you know, is he going to be an election issue? Is there going to be a lot of debate about this? It seems like everyone on both sides now are just like, let's try to move past this guy and get back to what that politics of that district used to look like. Yeah, I think it's over. And I think that's good for America and that's good for the people of this district. They're ready to see a change. What people want now is somebody to actually pay attention to what they care about, because everybody's got this sense of dread. Everything you talked about on the show this morning, you talk about every day. There's dread. Everybody's dreading what's going on. And they look to Congress and like, what are you doing to help us? And so my campaign is not going to be about Democrats versus Republicans. People are sick of the finger

pointing, feel sick of the attacking. They want someone who's going to work together with other people of goodwill to try and actually solve problems and help make their lives better when it comes to affordability, when it comes to immigration, when it comes to safety, when it comes to all the things that people care about, that they're worried about. When it comes to Israel, when it comes to Ukraine, they want people to address the sense of dread they have because it's all nagging away. You know, the rainstorms we've been having lately, we're like, is there something really going on that we have to really be worried about? Who's going to address the things we really care about? And I've got a record of

working across party lines to get things done to try and make people's lives better. So that bipartisan pitch aside, though, of course, there is also the control of the House of Representatives will be up for grabs. The Republican majority is very, very slim, but they won it in 2022. Most people believe because of the Democrats failures in New York state. So what is going to be better or different this time around in this state, reliably blue, but seats slipped away from your party last time? I think that the people in my party recognize that we have not been communicating to the people of Long Island and Northeast Queens. We haven't been addressing the things that they're really

concerned about. These things I was talking about earlier, the sense of dread. And they know that I'm the candidate that people know that will actually talk about the issues they care about. I did my first press release in a year the other day, and I was endorsed by local mayors. Half of them were Republicans. Half of them were Democrats. I kicked off my campaign on whatever I can remember now, a couple of days ago, and had a big press conference, 150 people in Levittown, the nation's first suburb. And the guy whose house we were at was a former New York City policeman who said, I've never voted for a Democrat except one, Tom Suozzi. So we want people to recognize that we hear what they're saying

and we're going to try and address the things that they care about. Can I just follow up on that, Congressman, which is what do they care about? And to what extent are you hearing people talking about the border? to what extent are you hearing people talking about the border? To what extent are you hearing them talking about things like Gaza, about Israel, about Ukraine? Or is it all local? Is it all domestic? Affordability is the biggest thing. People are really in state and local tax deduction is so important to us here in New York state and in other Democratic states. Typically, you know, President Trump said, forget about those guys.

So you're going to bring back salt? Yes, I'm going to do. It's going to be my biggest focus. Also, they're concerned about immigration. That's a real concern that people have. They're concerned about crime. Now, there are people, a smaller percentage of people are concerned about Israel. I'm very concerned about Israel.

I understand where you're coming from. You know this stuff like the back of your hand. This is an existential threat for all of us. Ukraine, I'm really concerned about Ukraine. That's a smaller percentage of the people. But the people that are concerned about that are really intense about it. And they want us to make sure that we stand with Ukraine and stand with Israel. All right. Democratic nominee for Congress in New York, Tom Suozzi. Thank you very much for coming on the show this morning. We appreciate it. Thanks so much for having me. And coming up right here on Morning Joe, Pablo Torre will help us break down the L.A. Dodgers new 700 million dollar contract for just one player. He's got

the calculator out. He's pondering. He's thinking, is this investment going to pay off? He joins us next.