Morning Joe - Morning Joe 12/21/23

Episode Date: December 21, 2023

Biden on Colorado 14th Amendment decision: There’s ‘no question’ Trump ‘supported an insurrection’

Hey, Colorado, Donald Trump is no longer on the ballot, but you can still vote for a proven winner. A glorious leader with a very large brain. His name? Durnald Turmp. Durnald has never been impeached, indicted, or incited an insurrection. Durnald loves his children, Derek, Ivoinky, and Durnald, too. And Durnald does not hide classified documents at his Florida mansion, Merpalurgo. So vote Durnald Trump, and he will make the United States goodest as it once was. I'm Durnald Trump, and I approve this message.

I didn't know you were going to. Good morning, and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Thursday, December 21st. Great to have you with us. Also with us, we have White House Senator for Politico, Sam Stein, who intimidates people who work for him to say that he's a favorite at Politico. We heard that Sam. Also MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle, Washington bureau chief for the USA Today, Susan Page and staff writer at The Atlantic, Mark Leibovich. President Biden made his first remarks yesterday about the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Donald Trump's disqualified from that state's 2024 primary ballot because of his role in the January 6th attack on the Capitol. In Milwaukee, Biden initially refused to comment, but then said this when asked if Trump supported an insurrection. Well, I think you're self-evident.

You saw it all. Now, whether the 14th Amendment applies, I'll let the court make that decision. But he certainly supported an insurrection. No question about it. None. Zero. And he seems to be doubling down on about everything. Anyway, I've got to go do this. By the way, there's nothing controversial about that.

I mean, Mike Barnicle, we all saw it with our own eyes. This is one of those moments where, what, are you going to believe me or are you going to believe your lying eyes? Americans saw this with their eyes. They understand that Donald Trump did, in fact, take part, lead, encourage an insurrection to take place. They know that he told people that they needed to storm the Capitol. They needed to stop the count. He got extraordinarily angry with the Secret Service when they stopped him from going up there because he wanted to march on the floor. He wanted he wanted to be in the center of the insurrection. And Mike, you know, it's so maddening when Donald Trump talks about the quote hostages

and how grotesque to say that. Well, what's going on in Israel? But Donald Trump talks about the hostages that are being held. He talks about letting people who beat the hell out of cops out of jail after he gets there. The reason why is every time they come up, it's glaringly obvious Donald Trump still has escaped justice. Donald Trump is not in jail for committing insurrection, which we all know he did. Americans know he did. But he's out of jail because he's rich and powerful. Those people being in jail, those working Americans that followed his instructions and told the judges they were just following his insurrection instructions, they're in jail because they're not rich and powerful like Donald Trump.

So, yeah, yeah, he committed insurrection. Yes. If there were justice already, he'd be a lot more concerned about things than just not being on the Colorado Republican ballot. He'd be concerned because he should be in jail. Well, Joe, you know, the proof is in the in the pudding, so to speak. In this case, the proof is on the videotape. Like all sports announcers used to say, let's go to the videotape and take a look. Donald Trump did indeed support and promote an insurrection. And everybody in America and everybody in the world saw it play out. It was not a great day for democracy, certainly not a great day for this country. And Donald Trump is still, he has yet to pay a price, Joe, not only for all of this, he really,

in effect, has not paid a price for anything over the past 30 to 35 or 40 years that he was in business in New York. He's never been touched by the law. He's always avoided it with delays and obfuscation and lying. And he's still at large around the country. The sad part is he has enormous support considering the large country we live in and the amount of people in this country who pay attention to politics, but not really all of politics. And the Colorado ruling, sadly, as legitimate as some people think it is, it is more or less a get out the vote operation for Donald Trump, for his people. And it's just it's kind of disturbing. Well, you know, maybe get out the vote operation. There are those of us and I've said it all along.

I know it's irritating to people who just think that politics is about everything and men are above the law. But we either have a constitution or we don't have a constitution. Here's the factual question. Did Donald Trump commit insurrection? Yes. If Donald Trump committed insurrection, then as Judge Litton said yesterday, it's not anti-democratic

to follow the Constitution of the United States and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That's, in fact, the most pro-democratic thing that can be done. Stay with me, because if, in fact, he committed insurrection against the United States, this is the ultimate protectorate of that democracy. I understand it's sad and it's pathetic that people will say, oh, Trump derangement syndrome, oh, this, oh, that on other networks. They're going to be trying to confuse you.

They're going to be trying to move the ball. They're going to be trying to confuse their own viewers, which they do quite regularly, quite often. Fact is, the Constitution is crystal clear. If a court finds, as a Colorado court found, Donald Trump committed insurrection against the United States government, then you either follow the Constitution or you don't. And you can talk about democracy all you want.

I'm sure people that were following Hitler were talking about democracy a lot. I don't know. Mostly, everybody can, I guess they can go and wave the banner of democracy around when it's actually the opposite of democracy. Actually the opposite of democracy. Committing insurrection against the United States Constitution, trying to actually steal a presidential election. The antithesis of democracy. You see what's going on right now? These people would want you to believe that if the Constitution of the United States is followed, that's anti-democratic. They want you to believe that the 14th Amendment is anti-democratic.

They want you to believe that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which is crystal clear, is anti-democratic. The fact is what it does is the 14th Amendment. Section three protects us against those people and protects us against the the the the thug that sent those people to Capitol Hill. And I'm not alone in saying this. Joe, I don't. Four percent of Americans. Mike, hold on one second. 54% of Americans, 54% of Americans approve of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to kick Donald Trump off the state's 2024 presidential primary ballot. 54ty four percent of Americans approve of it. Only 35 percent of Americans disapprove of it. The survey conducted by YouGov America found that 84 percent of Democrats, 48 percent of

independents, 48 percent of independents and 24 percent of Republicans approved of the ruling. And Mike, do polls dictate what courts should do? No. No, they don't. But when you have Donald Trump and people who want an authoritarian taking control of Washington, D.C. again, saying, oh, this is a radical decision, this is anti-democratic, when in fact it's just the opposite, that poll is just one snapshot to show the majority of Americans are like, yeah, yeah. You know what? He shouldn't be on the ballot because he committed insurrection against the United States. You know, Joe, I don't disagree with the word you said. I fully subscribe to all of it. My my problem is I'm conflicted. I'm torn about it because we are a country of habit. We do things by habit. We have certain days, Memorial Day,

July 4th. It's habit what we do in those days. One of the habits that we all share is Election Day and it's voting people on or out of office. And I would think now the courts have spoken in Colorado. Other courts will speak. The Supreme Court will likely speak within the next month, certainly maybe sooner. I mean, the habit people have of voting, that's the way to do in Donald Trump. That's the way to do him in. It's up to the Democratic Party, President Biden's party, his campaign for reelection to do the job, to help us do the job, to get rid of him. Yeah.

Not the courts. I completely understand what you're saying. But when the habit, Susan Page, of voting peacefully is broken for the first time since the Civil War by somebody that wants to stop the peaceful transition of power. That habit, that norm is broken by Donald Trump. That said, I completely understand what Mike Barnicle is saying. And Susan, you you've been in Washington almost as long as me. And I'm sure you understand. And it's I know you've thought about it an awful lot. This Supreme Court, this Roberts Supreme Court, they have a massive decision to make. And I think if it were just a law review article being written, they would probably come down on the side of the Colorado Supreme Court. But with all the implications that Mike's talking about, I just think how hard it's going to be. And I know people

don't understand this, but how hard it's going to be for the United States Supreme Court to get there, even if it's the legally correct thing to do under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Just the real life implications are going to be so massive. I think an institutionalist like John Roberts and his court is going to have a hard time getting there. Yeah, for sure. A tough decision. Do we think it might be a 9-0 decision instead of a 5-4 decision? You know, possibly that would be reassuring, I think, for a lot of Americans, whichever way it went. You know, I think back to the 2000 election, which was decided by the Supreme Court, with a 5-4 decision along what amounted to partisan lines on the court. And what strikes me about the time since then is how,

after that court decision came down, it was accepted by Al Gore, even though he'd won the popular vote. It was accepted by most Americans. There was not rioting in the streets over an election being stolen. What if the court came out with a decision this time around, 5-4, closely divided, largely along partisan lines that went one way or the other with a 5-4 decision would probably go Trump's way. Maybe it wouldn't. Would the country accept it in the same way that the country accepted the court decision in 2000? I am skeptical that that would happen. I think the consequences would be considerably more serious. I agree with you. It's a it's been a rocky 23 years since that Supreme Court decision that that decided the 2000 race here. Here's a former attorney general Barr, who's usually critical of what Donald Trump did on October 6th and in the days following January 6th.

I mean, January 6th and the days following. Also, yesterday, he was very critical of Donald Trump's racist language that channeled Adolf Hitler. We'll show you that clip in a little bit. But here is Barr, former Attorney General Barr, opposing the Colorado decision, saying it only helps Donald Trump. Take a look. I think that this case is legally wrong and untenable. And I think this kind of action of stretching the law, taking these hyper aggressive positions to try to knock Trump out of the race are counterproductive. They backfire. As you know, he he feeds on grievance just like a fire feeds on oxygen. And this is going to end up as a grievance that helps him.

Again, this is Mark Leibovich. This is just it's a fascinating legal question. He said two things there. Barr said it was legally wrong. I actually disagree with him there. And I think a lot of legal scholars, of which I am not one, but a lot of legal scholars would disagree with the former attorney general that it's legally wrong. I think a lot of them scholars would disagree with the former attorney general that it's legally wrong. I think a lot of them might agree on the second thing he said, which is untenable. And I know that a lot of people are watching and and they're they're noting the friction to go. Wait a second. You're saying that it's it may be legally correct, but untenable at the same time. That's exactly what I'm saying, Mark, because of the consequences. I mean, I would hope that the Supreme Court could put on blinders and say, this is a law.

We're going to apply Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the way that it was written. But again, I think if there's any ambiguity, the court, maybe in a 9-0 fashion, is going to rush to that ambiguity, even if that's not legally correct. Yeah, I think the notion of grievance in this context is frankly a political construct, right? I mean, Donald Trump has used grievance to his political advantage. And the legal aspect of this is, yeah, I mean, it's obviously very contentious and it's something that is going to be, you know, argued up the ladder. I mean, I think, though, that, you know, ultimately, I think most Americans would think that this should be decided by voters. I mean, whether they theoretically agree with the court case, most people haven't really read terribly closely is one thing. But I mean,

I think voters shouldn't get off the hook that easily. I mean, I think that's the view of a lot of people who disagree with this decision, whether they disagree for political reasons, practical reasons, what have you. But ultimately, you know, voters need to weigh in on Donald Trump at some point and Joe Biden, too. But whatever the wherever the election comes out as in next November, it's going to have to be some kind of national consensus. And it's very messy. It might not even be an electoral consensus. But ultimately, I mean, I think the court here is, you know, I guess what Attorney General Barr was saying is that it kind of muddles the issue a

little bit. It does turn it political inherently. And, you know, it probably is not going to save us ultimately from what's going to be an extremely messy election. Yeah. Let me, Joe, let me just add a couple of things here. One is that, you know, Barr said, you know, he obviously disagreed with the decision. He said it's stretching the law and maybe so, but I think it's worth noting that the law is being stretched, not by the people who have brought this case forward, being stretched by Trump, right? I mean, Trump brought this issue upon himself by his actions on January 6th. We've never had to debate these legal issues in the 14th Amendment's third clause before, because, frankly, we've never had a president involved in inciting an insurrection before. So this is the

situation we have ourselves in. Secondly is that, you know, there's probably a lot of public misconception about this, but this case is case is yes it's being cheered on by um some liberal judicial activists but it's being brought forward by long-time conservative uh activists obviously they are critical of trump but these aren't you know these aren't like you know you know ralph nader types these are people who uh worked for the federalist society so that's also to consider uh but also finally finally, to Mark's point, when you take the temperature of even Democrats, I mean, I thought the most interesting thing yesterday was just how quiet Democrats were about this. And they're not cheering it. They recognize

that it's in a tinderbox politically for them to say, yeah, let's let the courts, you know, knock Trump off the ballot. It looks like they're kind of engineering Trump's defeat. Dean Phillips, who's challenging Biden, said he disagreed with the decision. I think the general consensus politically is that this can't be held up, that it has to be decided at the ballot box. But just to underscore your point, Joe, I think there is a seriousness to the challenge and the legal issues at hand that Barr probably dismisses too kindly. Well, he does dismiss way too kindly. Again, I understand the political impact of this. There are a couple of laughable arguments, though, that if you hear somebody saying today,

feel free to mock them. Don't mock them. I'm just joking. It's a Christmas season. Be sweet and maybe just gently correct them. The number one thing is that this is some kind of leftist plot. This is not a leftist plot. This idea, this law review paper, this approach was actually framed by two of the two highly respected members of the Federalist Society, people that the new members of the Supreme Court that were appointed by Donald Trump know all too well and have read all too often to just simply dismiss this as some sort of left-wing legal conspiracy. So, Sam, you're exactly right. I think Bill Barr was wrong to dismiss it out of hand

and saying it was, quote, stretching the law. It's not stretching the law. The second thing is, again, how anybody that supports Donald Trump can say with a straight face that this is anti-democratic. As Sam said again, this goes back to January the 6th. The most anti-democratic actions that were taken against the United States of America since Fort Sumter. And the very people that continue to support that insurrection and promise us if Donald Trump's elected again, he's going to jail his opponents. He's going to assassinate generals. He's going he's going to ban media outlets that he disagrees with. that somebody may actually apply the Constitution to the facts at hand on an insurrection that

Donald Trump inspired, that he led, that he was responsible for. And again, so many of these people are serving jail time and Donald Trump's not for one simple reason, because unlike Donald Trump, they are not rich and powerful. So please spare me the anti-democratic lectures. What a joke. Anyway, when we come back, we already showed you some of what former Attorney General Barr said about this case. We're going to show you what he said about Donald Trump's poisoning of the blood fascist rhetoric. Also going to show you some of the more mealy mouth responses from Republican presidential candidates when Morning Jail returns. We got to you know, when they let I think the real numbers 15, 16 million people into our country when they do that, we got a lot of work to do.

They're poisoning the blood of our country. We have no idea who any of them are. They come from Africa. They come from Asia. They come from South America. And it's true. They're destroying the blood of our country. That's what they're doing.

They're destroying our country. They don't like it when I said that. And I never read Mein Kampf. They said, oh, Hitler said that in a much different way. No, they're coming from all over the world, people all over the world. We have no idea. They could be healthy. They could be very unhealthy. They could bring in disease that's going to catch on in our country. But they do bring in crime. But they have them coming from all over the world and they're destroying the blood of our country. They're destroying the fabric of our country. And we're going to have to get them out. A couple of quick corrections here. By the way, that is rhetoric. That is eerily reminiscent of what Adolf Hitler said.

Donald Trump said he never read Mein Kampf. Perhaps he never read Mein Kampf. I don't know. I do know that Ivana Trump said that he kept a book of Hitler's speeches by his bedside, told Vanity Fair that. So maybe it's not Mein Kampf, but he's certainly channeling that book that Ivana Trump said he kept by his bedside. That was some of Donald Trump's worst rhetoric lately. And of course, there's there's a quite a hearty competition for the worst things that he's been saying recently. But that was some. And this is some of Donald Trump's 2024 opponents who are lobbying mild criticisms at Trump for his repeated fascist rhetoric, talking about migrants poisoning the blood of our country. In an interview released yesterday by the Christian Broadcasting Network, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said this. When you start talking about using those types of terms, I don't think that that helps us move

the ball forward. I would not put it in those terms. A former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley gave a similar response, telling the Des Moines Register yesterday that Trump's remark was, quote, just not helpful. Compare that to former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who in a scene in an interview Sunday called Donald Trump's quote disgusting for the comments and said he was dog whistling to Americans. It's a dog whistle as much as a foghorn. When you're quoting Hitler, I think we've moved beyond the dog whistling stage. More than dogs can hear Hitler rhetoric. And here is what former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr had to say yesterday about it. I'm offended by it because it has racist overtones.

I actually feel, as you say, we have to control the border and a lot of people coming across the border from anywhere in the world. We don't know where they're coming from. But at the end of the day, the fact of the matter is that the Hispanic Americans that have come up from South America have made great citizens. You know, they have strong values. They're entrepreneurial. My son-in-law was a Marine combat officer, and he said the best Marines in his unit in Iraq were recent Hispanic immigrants. So I don't like these racist overtones. In the broad sweep of history, the fact that we have a reservoir to our south of these people who come out of the Western tradition, they're religious people, good family people in general,

is a boon to the United States. Does that mean they all are like that? No. And does bringing in a lot of people at once from a different country, does that put strains on our system and harm the country to an extent? Yes, it does. But the attacks on the idea that they pollute our blood, you know, I think are foul. Yeah, you know, you know who he sounds a lot like is Ronald Reagan. I know that Trump Republicans probably don't understand that because they probably don't read Ronald Reagan, what Ronald Reagan said or ever listen to what Ronald Reagan used to say. That's exactly what Reagan said. In fact, he said it in his farewell address to Americans,

how important immigrants are to the core of this country. I'm so glad also he brought up the fact that Hispanic Americans are some of the bravest, some of the toughest, some of the best fighters that we have in uniform. And I've heard that time and again. So it is interesting, Susan Page, while some of the condemnations may not have been as full throated as some would like, it is interesting that most Republicans now do feel comfortable, at least these presidential candidates, and at least condemning him for what what Bill Barr said was foul language. I don't I don't know if I would give them that much credit. Nikki Haley, the child of immigrants, she just says they're not helpful. I mean, these are these are dehumanizing comments with a fascistic history poisoning the blood of our country.

Earlier, former President Trump had referred to them as vermin. This is language we know something about in not so long ago of our history. So how can it not be denounced in a really full-throated way? Why are the candidates who most want to replace him as the Republican nominee not calling this out in a more serious way? It says something about the state of the Republican Party and the hold that Trump continues to have on its voters. Well, and to me, it's, you know, it says something about the sort of centrality of immigration and fears of immigration in Trump's appeal. I mean, this has been the sort of bedrock principle of Trumpism from the get-go, starting with the Muslim ban to the attacks on justices over their nationality. And I don't know, Mark, you followed the guy for a while.

I'm kind of curious biographically, like prior to his political days, where does this come from? What has informed his thinking on this? Or is this all sort of a plain, crass political calculation that you think he's making? I mean, I think both. I mean, first of all, I mean, two of his three wives were immigrants. Right. I guess. That's not that, you know, that tends to happen sometimes where you, you know, have a familial

connection to an immigrant and you just, you know, say things that are blatantly anti-immigrant. But anyway, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. That is true. No, no, I think, well, I think there's obviously a political calculation. I think there's a visceral calculation here. I think it also kind of comes up from a world of ethnic politics and ethnic friction. I mean, that's kind of the whole melting pot of New York. And it's often very vibrant and very dynamic.

But it also can be turned on its head. And it can be an incredibly divisive notion that can be used quite cynically. So, I don't know, I would just say that it would not it would not kill me never to hear the expression. That's not helpful again from politicians. I mean, the idea that everything must be helpful. And you're right, though, I do think it goes to the level of passivity that is that is the anti-Trump resistance in the Republican Party, which has frankly been abysmal, as we've all said. And Mike Barnicle, Susan Page brings up a great point for Nikki Haley to just say it's

not helpful when she is the daughter of immigrants, somebody that has seen firsthand the American dream and seen how important immigrants are to the American dream. Well, you know, just like Donald Trump's mom was an immigrant, just like two of Donald Trump's three wives were immigrants, just like Nikki Haley's parents were immigrants. We have just like people who have have made and remade Silicon Valley are immigrants. We can go down the list of people who we see on TV, people who impact our world, people who make America stronger and more vibrant in the words of Ronald Reagan. And they're immigrants. So I take Susan's point. Not helpful is not helpful. She needs to say more. Everybody needs to say more. I mean, think about what we've been talking about here for 20 minutes. This country is in a state of turmoil. Who caused the turmoil?

Largely, Donald Trump caused the turmoil because of his behavior, because of who he is and what he does. So the question is for all of us as Americans, not the politicians, all of us as regular Americans to ask, how did we get here? How did a guy with a 40 year record of being a fraud skate on everything, escape from every charge? How did that happen? How does it happen that he was once a president of the United States, now might be again a president of the United States as he's running for president and clearly has the nomination of one of our two major political parties. When this guy, one judge has called him a rapist, another judge, another court has declared that he's a total fraud, a fake, a crook, a thief. He is going to be odds on favorite to be president of the United

States. Where are the Democrats in dealing with this? Why haven't they gone after him harder than they have ever in the past? The Republicans are foolish. They sound foolish. They sound fraudulent. They sound really, really weak. I mean, Nikki Haley, that's a perfect example. The daughter of immigrants. And she says, oh, that's not helpful. I mean, she's not helpful. Now, it really is. It is, again, yet not helpful. It's also fascinating what Mike said, Susan, that Donald Trump's never been held accountable. He's never been held accountable for anything. And his supporters are so shocked and stunned that there are all these lawsuits, all of these cases,

all of these charges that have been brought against him. When we were saying here in 2019 that if he lost in 2020, he would run again so he could say, oh, they're only coming after me. They're only bringing these charges against me, which people knew were coming. They're only bringing them against me because I'm running for office. And there was talk. You could look in The Washington Post.

You can look in the USA Today. You can look in The New York Times. There were people that were telegraphing this saying, well, yeah, he may run again if only to be able to use it as a shield against the prosecutions that he knows are coming. Yeah. And of course, he's seeking to delay a quick Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. That's one of the big cases coming up. If he succeeds in having kind of the regular order, which means a slower process, the delay is victory, I think, this year for Donald Trump, because it would put him in position if he wins the election in 11 months that he could dismiss the order of the Justice Department to not pursue these charges against him. You know, one question I have is we've seen this phenomenon where all these indictments have not affected Trump's support. It's in fact solidified Trump's support. Does a conviction, there's a conviction on some of these serious charges before the election,

does that have a different effect? Does that have a kind of reckoning effect that will prompt some voters who have not yet changed their view on Trump to reconsider their support? And that's a question I don't know the answer to. I wonder if you know. I've seen, Mark Leibovich, I've seen some reporting that suggests, recent polls, that it doesn't have an impact. We'd heard originally that it would. It seems that the more Donald Trump is indicted, the more wrongdoing that's exposed, the more Republicans like him. You know, but, you know, in some cases, in some cases,

voters surprise us. They surprise us sometimes by the things they dismiss. They can surprise us by the things they take seriously. So this is, I think, something to just I think it's just something to be aware of and watching. I do think, though, that a conviction would move the needle more than an indictment. I mean, you know, there's been a lot of indictments now at this point. But but also, you know, people will say, I think, you know, you know, the process has to play out. I mean, he needs to go through the courts and so forth. But to actually be convicted by a jury of his peers

would, I think, make a statement. There would be a lot of courtroom drama around that. And, you know, it might make for a different calculus. Yeah, no, polls show exactly that. They show a quarter of the Republican electorate would turn against Trump if he was convicted, which is highly significant. The other thing that's kind of interesting, according to polls, if you look at it, is that the people more likely to be turned off by Trump because of these legal problems are voters 65 and older. Now, traditionally, that's been a GOP constituency, but they are more offended by this. I wonder if it's because maybe more of them live through Watergate, understand the severity of this, or maybe they're just more inclined to turn Democratic in recent years. But I've noticed that in the polls

that 65 and older tend to be more turned off by Trump because of this stuff. One of the reasons why I'm looking at polls now a bit more skeptically is because how upside down they are. You see Joe Biden doing much better holding on with older voters and Donald Trump doing better with younger voters, something that many of us believed up until the last couple of months would actually just just be in reverse. Coming up, our next guest describes his past year on Capitol Hill is, quote, grossly unproductive. I know a couple of days ago, Axios said it was the least productive session in modern American history. We're going to break down the record historic dysfunction in the House and what it may mean for next year. Morning Jail. We'll be right back.

This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness. We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people, our strength, from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so, we continuously renew and enrich our nation. While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America, we breathe life into dreams, we create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow.

Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we're a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost. This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness. A beautiful shot of lower Manhattan four days before Christmas. Welcome back to Morning Joe. It's been 75 years now since President Harry Truman nicknamed the 80th U.S. Congress the Do Nothing Congress.

Actually helped him very much in his reelection campaign. But that title actually may be fitting for today's 118th Congress, more than the 80th Congress. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Republican-led House has held more votes this year while passing fewer laws than any other time in the past decade. They really have done nothing. But don't take their word for it or my word for it. Here's Republican Congressman Chip Roy. One thing. I want my Republican colleagues to give me one thing, one, that I can go campaign on and say we did. One. Anybody sitting in the complex,

if you want to come down to the floor and come explain to me one material, meaningful, significant thing the Republican majority has done besides, well, I guess it's not as bad as the Democrats. With us now, let's bring in congressional correspondent for The New York Times, Annie Carney. She details the political paralysis stemming from the House Republicans taking over in her new piece. Annie, this was a train wreck legislatively from the start. Of course, Kevin McCarthy could, you know, they couldn't even pick a speaker. When they did, they got rid of him. Then we went through that whole debacle again. But the numbers don't lie here.

In your article, you talk about how they've only enacted 27 laws compared to 2022 when 248 laws were passed. Bills were signed into law. And you just look at the comparison, Congress by Congress, session by session. This really is in a league of its own, isn't it? Oh, absolutely. It was a historically unproductive Congress that really did nothing. The comparison and last year's bills included, you know, landmark legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act, the first bipartisan bill on guns in decades. This Congress, some of those 27 bills include, like, renaming a veteran affairs clinic and something about a commemorative coin for the Marine Corps. These were really small, poor items. A little bit of that is unfair.

Last year, Democrats controlled the House and the Senate, and they could easily pass things to send Biden to sign into law. But even comparing this year to other years of divided government, when the House was controlled by Republicans and the Senate was controlled by Democrats, even factoring that in, it was a grossly unproductive session. And most of that has to do with the fact that people like Chip Roy enjoy making the point that government does nothing, and that's why we should have less of it. Yeah, Annie, I was going to say, how can you call it unproductive when it produced the likes of George Santos, who gave us so much drama? But isn't the goal here to do nothing?

Like, isn't that the entire point of why Republicans took over, is just to basically stop everything from happening? And in that case, isn't—we're talking about a sort of mission accomplished here? Oh, yeah. That's part of the problem. Well, first of all, if you count, like, personal grievance and drama, it was, like, super productive. Yeah, highly productive, right. They censured three members of Congress.

They expelled George Santos. They have lots of speaker races. So in that sense, very productive year. But on the do nothing is the point, that is why. That is going to the why of it. Why was it so bad? The Republicans have a tiny majority that's only getting smaller with Santos's expulsion and McCarthy's resignation. And that has given these people who want are here to reign in government and, you know, basically dismantle government outsized power in the Republican conference.

And it has allowed them to, you know, kind of hold up any agenda. Like, Chip Roy looked like he was having a ton of fun making that floor speech talking about how they're doing nothing and got a good clip out of it that we, that he can, you know, campaign on that, you know, government is useless. And that has made, so not only is it a moment of divided government, but Republicans have been divided against themselves. And this small group of far-right people have outsized power there. So, Annie, we're on the verge of a new year and there's a relatively new speaker, Mike Johnson. We've all witnessed the turmoil over the past year.

We've all witnessed Kevin McCarthy being thrown out and Johnson succeeding him after multiple ballots and things like that. Going forward, is it going to be the same? Is it going to be the same movie we're going to be watching? Is Mike Johnson going to be walking on eggshells for fear of alienating maybe three people who say, hey, get him out of there? Is that what we're looking forward to? Yeah, I think so. I don't think he's actually afraid of being ousted. I think that Republicans realized how hard it was to install someone new and don't really want to do that again. But absolutely, the same dynamics are there. He has made all of the same moves that McCarthy did. He's January is going to be much

worse. He has we have he passed short term government spending bills to avoid a shutdown this year. He just punted that into early next year. The far right is mad at him for the same reasons that they were mad at McCarthy. They are pulling the same moves to demonstrate that by voting down rules on the House floor, which is something also that's never happened really before this Congress, never happened to the past three speakers. So, yes, I think that they the dynamics haven't changed. The majority in the House has gotten smaller. Mike Johnson so far is proving to be pretty indecisive leader. And despite being like a far from the far right of the party, they're already very angry with him. The honeymoon is over. I don't think anyone

should expect next year to be any more productive than this one. Oh, oh, my God. What a clown show. Kevin McCarthy taking what, 15, 16 ballots. George Santos, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, their their different exploits. The new speaker, very fascinating times. Congressional correspondent for The New York Times, Annie Carney. Thank you so much. Greatly appreciate you being with us. Hope you have a great holiday. You too. All right. And Mark Leibovich, you coming up, we're going to talk about whatever we're going to talk about.

But I want to go to Mark Leibovich. I'm sorry. I was supposed to go to break. But whenever Mark Leibovich is here, this is like, you know, he's he's an idol to all of us that read The Atlantic. So I just wanted to ask you really quickly. Yeah, the commercial can wait, said me always. So you you have had this really interesting relationship with Kevin McCarthy. And so I'm curious what your insight is on on Annie's reporting on the House GOP about how it got to where it got and just how dysfunctional it was. Again, I talked about how McCarthy, how hard it was for him to become speaker. Lauren Boebert and MTG, George Santos. And now you've got a speaker who's channeling Jim and Tammy Faye Baker. And I'm dead serious. I dead serious. He's channeling him.

I'm just curious what what your thought is about not just what led to where we were, but kind of what what we're looking at through all of your reporting on Kevin McCarthy. Yeah. I mean, what's interesting about McCarthy is you sort of want to ask him, I mean, was it worth it, Kevin? I mean, this guy wanted one thing, like his entire career, which is to hold the speaker's gavel, to get the photo up of him holding up the gavel and it kind of looked like a toy in his hands. And then he had the pictures of himself outside the speaker's office. You know, was it worth it? I mean, he had an extremely tumultuous speaker's, you know, less than a year speaker's tenure. What is interesting, though, is the two things that really got him booted by his own caucus were arguably the only two responsible things he did. I mean, he crafted that debt ceiling deal with the White House. And, you know, he helped ensure that the government stays open when it looked like it was about to

close. And again, those are kind of standard speaker things. I mean, that's what happens and has traditionally happened without people, you know, really blinking an eye. And yet he does them and then he's gone. I mean, I do wonder what he thinks from the outside. I mean, by all accounts, he seems kind of bitter about how it all went down. He seems to be on a bit of a revenge tour with some of the former colleagues who were behind his ouster. But look, this is, I think, what we're looking at right now for as long as Republicans control Congress, especially with these margins, which is speakers just terrified of, you know, ticking off the wrong person and having someone, you know,

do the next motion to vacate and the next chaos period can commence. So I don't know. I mean, I think McCarthy, he got what he was looking for, which is like a bunch of photo ops. I'm not sure if it was worth it in his in his mind. Maybe not. So I had it's official. That was great. And it was worth putting this story off for about 90 seconds. But let's do it now. It is official. The Baltimore Orioles will keep playing at Camden Yards for a very long time. We're going to talk to Maryland's Governor Wes Moore about that and much more with more. And there's more Morning Joe coming back.

One dance left, this world is going to pull through. We're patient. You tuned in night after night, hoping for a moment like this. The 1-1 to Story is grounded at third. Ramon Urias from third. The Orioles have done it! Go crazy, Baltimore! You are the new champions of the American League East. Well, I'm glad the Red Sox had at least one bit of history in last season. That's the Baltimore Orioles clinching the American League East pennant in September for the first time since 2014. A little rougher in the first round, but the American League East had a down year last year.

But the Orioles, make no mistake of it, a great team last year, and they've got some of the best upcoming prospects. They should be good for quite some time. And on Monday, O's fans were given another reason to celebrate when the team and state officials formalized a deal to keep the birds at Camden Yards for the next 30 years. With us now, Maryland's Governor Wes Moore. Governor, thanks so much for being with us.

Talk about the good news. It's great. I don't know if you guys are a little hot. I'm a little hot here. If you need some help, you know, just let me know here. Let me know with A alice champs um so yes so to to this to the chagrin of all of our red sox and yankees fans the alice champions are going to be in baltimore for the next 30 years and uh and and we're ecstatic it's a it's a great deal for

for the state and and honestly we showed this is how you get big deals done you do them in partnership you know we did it in partnership with a team. We did it in partnership with the General Assembly. We did it in partnership with the Maryland Stadium Authority and our outstanding new chair, Craig Thompson. And this is a deal, you know, I had three criteria when we entered into this, and there were no negotiations taking place when we took office 11 months ago. And we just knew one of the most storied franchises in sports was about to not have a lease and be homeless. So we said, we're going to be aggressive on it. And we had three criteria. One, we're going to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. Two, we want to create winners on and off the field. And three, I'm not doing a short-term deal that, you know, our state had a

history of doing these one-year deals. And I said, you know, these short-term deals, they're not only unimaginative, they're dangerous, and only long-term deals. And so we're really proud that this is a deal that's going to keep the Orioles here for 30 years and start just a larger process of how are we rethinking this larger renaissance of Baltimore with one of Baltimore's core anchors at the forefront. Hey, Governor, first of all, I'd just like to say it's so refreshing to see an American politician with a great smile, a sense of humor about himself, a sense of purpose about his mission. That's you, Governor Wes Moore. So I want to thank you because these are pretty dark days politically for a lot of us who cover politics and talk about politics each and every day.

But Camden Yards, it was built by a guy by the name of Larry Lachino, a baseball icon. And it's been it's been the model for nearly every new park that's been built since the early 90s that followed Camden Yards and changed Major League Baseball. So this new 30-year lease, tell us what it means to the core of the city of Baltimore, a city that's had some problems economically and otherwise. What does it do to the core of the city in terms of future growth for the city around Camden Yards. Thanks so much, Mike. And you're right. It's everything. It, you know, economically,

what it means is we have our anchors between the Orioles and the Ravens that are now going to be two crucial players in a larger master planning process about how we're rethinking a downtown core that's going to benefit

the entire city. It's going to help small business owners, minority business owners, women business owners, and people who now have a measure of predictability because it's difficult to get someone to invest in a city when its core anchors could potentially leave. And we've seen the consequence of that in Oakland. We're seeing the conversations that are now taking place in Washington, D.C. between the Wizards and the Caps. You need to give predictability, and this deal gives predictability. But in addition to the economic growth that this will spurn, the ability to create

a live, work, play environment that everybody can benefit from, it's also the psychology of it. You know, the Orioles are us. They're a huge part of the psychology of this city and the psychology of this state. And having them here for a long period of time. You know, it doesn't just inspire memories that so many of us have coming up and going to O's games, but it's really proud to know that, you know, my kids and grandkids, you know, hopefully one day we'll be able to go out there and watch the birds win. So this was a major, major win for our state and a major win for our taxpayers. Governor, I'm wondering, you mentioned the importance of doing a long-term deal.

I tend to agree. I mean, I think fans, if they're going to invest emotionally into a team, it's good to know they're going to be around. Talk a little bit about why that was important and why this was one of your priorities here. Well, because we need to create measures of predictability. And only long-term vision and long-term deals can give you that. If people think that you could have core anchors that could pick up and leave, that could change an economic dynamic of a region, then they won't invest. They'll find other places. And the bigger renaissance that's taking place right now, where we're looking at Baltimore, where we've had the state making investments in Harbor Place and in the inner harbor, making investments in the Baltimore Orioles and the Baltimore Ravens, making investments

in housing that's impacting everyone from West Baltimore and East Baltimore and all around. You know, Baltimore right now is on a measure of rise, where this is the first year in nine years that Baltimore will not see 300 homicides. And it's not going to come close, where for the first year in nine years, the homicide and the nonfatal shooting rate in crucial because no one is going to make long term plans when your anchors are there on a short term basis. You've got to give that measure of predictability. And that's why this became so important. And that's why we took and our administration just took a different posture than what we've seen in the past. Governor, you're a rising figure, not just in Maryland, but also nationally. And I wonder if you could take a broad look at the divisions we're seeing emerge in the Democratic Party on issues like immigration and on the Mideast. I wonder if you are you concerned about these divisions and what is your assessment of the state of President

Biden's reelection campaign as we head into this election year? Well, I'm excited to go out and campaign all over for President Biden, and not just because I'm fearful of the alternative. I know what President Biden has already delivered for our state. You know, I think about the fact that the president has been here multiple times, that the federal government has made over $400 million, $450 million of investments in the state of Maryland to help rebuild bridges and roads and tunnels. I think about the fact that we are going to have broadband and Wi-Fi for every person in our state by the end of my first term. And that could not have happened without a $267 million investment

that came from the federal government. And right now, since I've been governor, Maryland has jumped 20 slots in economic competitiveness. Maryland now has the lowest unemployment rate in the entire country. And I know that all the progress that we are making that Marylanders are excited about is because we have the partner that we need

in President Biden. And so I'm excited to make sure that that we're going out. And and I tell the folks in my state, look at what we've gotten done in 11 months. Imagine if you can give me another four years. That's why I'm out campaigning for President Biden. And that's why we feel very confident that no matter who the Republican nominee is, President Biden will win reelection next November. All right. As always, it's great to see you, Wes. Maryland Governor Wes Moore.

Show the colors again. Wave it. Come on. I didn't have to even tell you. Let's go, O's! Let's go, O's! All right. Thank you so much, Governor. Great to see you.