Morning Joe - Morning Joe 1/2/23

Episode Date: January 2, 2023

Ex-Capitol Police chief blames government agencies for failed Jan. 6 response

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Monday, January 2nd. Happy New Year, everyone. With us to kick off the new year, we have author and NBC News presidential historian Michael Beschloss, columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius, retired four-star Navy Admiral James Tavridis. He's chief international analyst for NBC News. And the host of way too early, White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire. Happy New Year to you all. Happy New Year to you.

Happy New Year. We have so much to talk about. And, you know, New Year yesterday morning, Mika and I went to the New Year's Day service and the priest gave a beautiful homily, I thought, on the need for all of us to be, as he said, architects of peace in our daily lives, in our political discourse, in our foreign policy and everything. Because the harsh path we've taken in our, well, not so new century. It's often elevated revenge over reconciliation. And as you reminded us, for all of us in attendance, and I love this.

Yeah, that's a good one. He said, when you seek revenge with someone, start by digging two graves, one of them for yourselves. Yeah. Wow. That really does strike you when you look what's what's happened in Washington over the past 20 years, because I really do believe we can we live in two Americas, one that has seen childhood poverty drop to 60 year lows. It's a teenage pregnancy dropped to 75 year lows. It's in the U.S. dollar stronger against other world currencies than any time over the last generation. It's in our U.S. dollar stronger against other world currencies than any time over the last generation.

It's seen our U.S. military stronger relative to the rest of the world than any military in the history of humankind. A lot is going on in America that is right. And yet we deal with a political system that continues. It just seems to get more bitter and more corrosive and more unworthy of the great nation that its leaders represent. So I'm just hoping in the new year that leaders in Washington, D.C., they can follow your dad's quote, which you have at the top of your Twitter bio. Oh, yeah, of course. Bipartisanship helps to avoid extremes and imbalances. It causes compromises and accommodations.

So let's cooperate. And there's no moral equivalency there. We've been very clear about what we believe has happened over the past six years. And most of the blame for that has rested. But let's hope, let us hope we can move forward in the coming year. And maybe our leaders will start doing what Americans Americans do want them to do. They want them to work together. And like your dad said, cooperate with each. And in the very final moments of the last year, democracy prevailed.

It survived. Yes. And, you know, there was a question. So there's a lot to be hopeful for as well. There really isn't. And Michael Beschloss, let me bring you in there. We really never got a sort of year end wrap up where we talked about democracy. But but you you you see what happened on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day in Ukraine. People cheering in Kyiv for those fighting for their freedom. Just just remarkable. And my gosh, every American could should be able to celebrate that loves this country, that loves the U.S. Constitution, that loves American democracy, that all the election deniers, all the people that wanted to say we won't recognize election outcomes unless our side wins, they all lost. 2022, I mean, you have to fight for democracy and freedom every day in whatever way you can. But

2022 gave us a couple of more years where at least the basics of Madisonian democracy remain intact. Absolutely, totally. And Happy New Year, Meek and Joe and everyone else. Let's celebrate today. You know, we have had ample reason over the last seven years to say these are dangers for democracy. But this morning, I think we can say that the election of 2022 proved, as I always love to say in those five or six key states, election deniers had been elected as governors, secretaries of state, election officials, state legislatures. Then what we would be talking about this morning would be the fact that there's a big shadow over the election of 2024. And will our democracy survive? So my point, and, you know, again, I'm sorry to keep on nodding, but I subscribe to everything you both are saying this morning, and that is, this is a moment, A, to celebrate what's happened, B, to meditate on the strength of democracy,

not only in the United States, but in Ukraine, where people are willing to give up their lives rather than succumb to an authoritarian dictatorship. And, you know, when you're talking about the need to work together and the danger of hatred in the sermon that you both heard on Sunday, it reminded me of, you know, you remember what Richard Nixon said in his last speech in the East Room of the White House to August 9th, 1974. Others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself. Nixon said he wasn't right about a lot of things, but this he sure was right about. And who should know more than Nixon about

how hatred destroys you? So, David Ignatius, your thoughts on 2022 as we look ahead to 2023? Well, I'd share a lot of the optimism that you and Joe were expressing. I think 2022 was a year in which in America, the party of crazy got pounded. Americans decided that they wanted candidates who were closer to the traditional natural order of our politics. And so I think that was a significant result. There's ways in which January 6th seems like a long time ago. We're a different country now in some subtle ways. And I think we should all be grateful for that and grateful for the people at the Justice Department and the Congressional Committee who've investigated January 6th so thoroughly. In the world, I see a lot of positive things, but I do see the values that we cherish in a struggle uh in in ukraine there's a brutal war that does bear comparison to to world war one taking place a war of attrition uh nightly uh pounding of the cities

of ukraine by a a truly despotic leader i think putin's losing i think he knows it. I think Zelensky and the Ukrainian people are winning. But there's a lot more, I fear, bloodshed ahead in that war. China, it's startling to see the failure of Xi's authoritarian policies in dealing with COVID and dealing with the economy. This has been a bad year for Xi Jinping. So many things have gone wrong and he's having to reverse course. I think his ability to seize Taiwan grows more complicated. Those are bode well for freedom. I think it's a way in which Ukraine reignited the idealism in Europe. When I travel in Germany or France, even, I find people just speak about the possibilities, the aspiration for freedom in a way that they wouldn't have 10 years ago. That's great. Germany is on a different course than it was.

In Iran, there's a movement that, believe it or not, is actually challenging the power of the mullahs to run the stifling society. Women in Iran have been unbelievably courageous in 2022. And there's every prospect that that movement will continue. But the point I'd make, I guess, is that this is in the balance. These are fights that are continuing. The good guys are being incredibly brave, but they could lose. And Admiral Stravitas, that's what I think is so important as we look back at 2022. We look back at a lot of the victories for democracy in 2022. We look at the fact that democracy began after about six to eight years, not just in the United States, but globally to push back against the authoritarian creep. And I would say that that creep actually became a blitz, obviously, as you would, too, in late February with Vladimir Putin. But we're talking here about how in 2022, gravity returned, justice returned, people that beat the hell out of police officers, people who tasered police officers with American flags, people who abused American democracy, they got sent to jail.

They're still getting sent to jail. People that wanted to deny a democracy, Madisonian democracy, got defeated at the ballot box. And let's take this globally. Vladimir Putin thought, as he's thought for many years now, that he would roll into Kiev, take over Ukraine in three to six days. That has changed. And I must say, as remarkable as the Ukrainian spirit has been, and they've taught the world so much about fighting for freedom, I agree with David Ignatius as we look forward to 2023. A spark has been reignited in Europe that has been dead for a long time. And that spark is about a love and a quest for democracy and the understanding that they're actually going to have to pay for it to get it. They're going to have to build up their defenses.

They're going to have to take part in this fight against Russia, against China, against Iran, these tyrants who, again, are trying to suppress democracy. Yeah, let's mention one other great figure who sailed on in this past year, and it's Colin Powell, one of my great life mentors and something he said. And I'd encourage everyone to Google Colin Powell's 13 rules for life. Four of them deal with optimism, optimism as a force force multiplier it will look better in the morning it can be done that spirit that kind of optimism cautious clear-eyed optimism is a powerful force and i think if we lay that up alongside what we've been talking about, Michael and David and I this morning, you lay that alongside the power of democracy as an idea and as an ideal. It's imperfect. We execute it without perfection, but it's the right set of ideals and the right idea

for these times. So, yeah, I agree with David. We ought to be very worried about what hangs in the balance in Ukraine, in China, ultimately in Iran and in other parts of the world. But as Michael said, I wouldn't bet against democracy, particularly when you align it with optimism and powerful leadership, like we saw from Colin Powell, and we will continue to see, I believe, internationally from the United States and from Europe. And final thought, just to draw a line under it, the degree to which we can pull Europe into the equation on a positive side is an extraordinarily important strategic asset for the United States.

This is a huge economy taken together militarily, taken together. It's the second largest military budget in the world, bigger than China's, bigger than Russia's. That often surprises people. But the Europeans, if they pull together in the right direction as partners with the United States, there is very little we cannot accomplish together. And if you throw in Japan in the Pacific, that network of allies, partners and friends, I'm feeling pretty good about where the world could go in 2023.

Well, I'm so glad you brought up Europe. It's something that we said often during Donald Trump's presidency. A lot of Trumpists love to attack Europe, love to push them to the side. You look at the EU's economy and our economy taken together. It's extraordinary. It dwarfs China's. And I don't even let's not even talk about my God. Let's not even talk about Russia. I mean, Texas's GDP dwarfs Russia's California's New York's dwarfs Russia. But I'm so glad Admiral Stavridis brought up Colin Powell, because I think of him when we talk about our top story of the day. I think of him because we had him on our show and he was talking about January the 6th. And he said he was pacing the floors in his home, looking at the right, saying what you and I were saying to our TV sets, yelling at our TV sets that I'm sure everybody else was. Which was General Powell said, where the hell are the police?

Where the hell is the military? And that is a question, of course, that we are still asking today. So we mix with the optimism that we're sharing this morning with this reality. And by the way, two things can be true at the same time. We have to look back at our failures as we also talk about some of the things that are working. Yes. The U.S. Capitol Police chief during the January 6th insurrection is sharing new details about the alleged government failures he says allowed the attack to happen in a new book out tomorrow, which has been reviewed by the Washington Post, Stephen's son gives his firsthand account of the Capitol insurrection. In the book, Sund writes that top leaders from the FBI, DHS, and even the Capitol Police's own intelligence

division were tipped off about the attack weeks before it happened. But those warnings were never shared with him. Sund also details failures to respond to the violence in real time, including a conference call shortly after rioters breached the Capitol, where Pentagon leaders allegedly refused to deploy National Guard troops to the scene. According to The Post, Sund writes that Lieutenant General Walter Pyatt told him he didn't like the optics of sending uniformed guard troops to the Capitol, but could allow them to replace police officers at roadside checkpoints. Sund says he later learned that at the same time, Pentagon leaders were rushing

to send security teams to protect the homes of military officials, none of which were under attack. Additionally, Sund claims that during the insurrection, many National Guard troops returned to their command center and clocked out of their shifts as if it was a normal day. Sund, who resigned the day after the riot at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, also warns that many of the same internal failures that allowed the insurrection to take place have not been fixed today. So this is where we this is where we are as we, you know, continue in the long road to getting our country back in order. Right. And a respect for the Constitution, a respect for our democratic process. We have to look at what happened still,

even though it feels like a long time ago. Well, and Jonathan O'Meara, I know you have a question for David Ignatius, but let me let me go to you first. This is something after January the 6th. I don't know. I got a little heated on January the 7th. And one of the things I was yelling about was the fact what the hell happened at the Pentagon. I want to know the timeline. I want to know why the FBI. We talked about all of this. And just bluntly, we really haven't gotten the clarity. The January 6th report did a lot of great things. We have not yet got all of the clarity that we need to understand all of the massive failures. But I think one thing

that we have to just say, and, you know, I know Trumpists would like us to pretend this didn't happen. We can't we can't pretend it didn't happen. There are a lot of people that were frozen in place in the military chain of command because they knew that Donald Trump did not want the riot broken up. Yeah. There's no question there. And Trump, of course, didn't do anything himself to summon the National Guard. We recall Vice President Pence from the Capitol eventually having to ask, where are the troops? Why has this not happened yet? We heard cries also from Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer asking for the same. And there was, of course, Pentagon reluctant perhaps to move because of the backlash to what had happened a few months earlier. That again, was Donald Trump's doing when he used military police and law enforcement to clear out peaceful protesters from Lafayette Park.

The George Floyd protests outside the White House because he wanted to have a photo op at that church holding a Bible upside down. And the military got a lot of heat for that, including Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Milley, the defense secretary at the time. They got a lot of criticism for that. So there was some reluctance for the Pentagon to move again. But let's, of course, be clear, they moved against one group who were protesting against Donald Trump, didn't move against this one, a group that was protesting for Donald Trump. And as much as we are optimistic about where things are, one of the things that President Biden often says in the aftermath of January 6th is it's about the rivalry between democracies and autocracies, but also proving that democracies can work again for their people.

And it's failures like this that need to be addressed in order to make that happen. So, David Ignatius, this is a pretty stunning report, particularly the idea that the Pentagon was going to send protection to the homes of military leaders who were never at any point in any danger that day. You know, you cover this institution closely and carefully. What is your analysis of what went wrong that day and to the charge that some of the failures might still exist? I think the first thing to say is that the Pentagon was so worried about a repetition of June 1 and Lafayette Square and the appearance of militarization of the response to protest that it leaned too far in the other direction, leaned too far against militarizing the response on January 6th. That's why they were slow to call out the National Guard. They lied, as it turns out, too much on a Capitol police that simply wasn't prepared. I think the fear in the minds of senior Pentagon leaders was that President Trump would declare the Insurrection Act, that he would use that as a pretext to call out the military and perhaps try to rerun the election in some key states. That's something that was

being pushed on him by Mike Flynn. But use the Insurrection Act as a way of gaining control. There were efforts underway in those days to seize control of the CIA, of other intelligence agencies, as part of an effort to be able to control power. But I think that the fundamental point is that the military was fighting the last war, the June 1 war, and the June 6, January 6 conflagration was different. As we look back, it's interesting to run the counterfactual. Suppose they had called out troops with a lot more armament at the Capitol as those rioters were breaching the Capitol. And shots had been open fired. And you would have had this scene conceivably like Tiananmen Square where there would have been a lot of deaths of protesters. How would that have played out? And it's hard to imagine that playing out well. So

it may be as we as we identify and prosecute those who did the insurrection on January 6th, that that that we're lucky that this wasn't a bloodbath that would have left a far different taste in the mouth of people. Yeah, Admiral Stravinas, I would guess that you would agree with David there that really the last thing that any military man or woman wants to do is be called in against fellow Americans. Yeah, absolutely. One thing to bear in mind is that we, the Pentagon, we, the military, are not unfamiliar with working alongside law enforcement, working alongside police. The place we do this a lot is in counter-narcotics. And the way we do it is we get the Department of Defense to provide the backbone, the muscle, the logistics, the force that moves forward. And then on the point

of the law enforcement activity, you have police officers, sworn police officers. No, you don't want to be in a world where the U.S. military is shooting down protesters, but you can be in a world whereby bringing forcefully the National Guard in this case, which recall is kind of citizen soldier in many ways, as distinct from pure active duty military, bring them in, put them behind the Capitol Police, show that capability. I think it would have quelled the spirit, if you will, of the Trump legions. We'll never know. David's point is well taken. It's a counterfactual. What we have is a situation where at the end of the day, I think those Pentagon leaders probably are thinking they were too slow to react, too late to need. If they

could run the clock, my guess is they would take more aggressive action, but leave us short of a Tiananmen Square scenario. That's a delicate balance and a hard one. But what we all watched that day, we never, never want to see it again. And the National Guard, I think, would have been the right answer early on. And as you said, there is a balance there in how you move forward. We must keep it in context. There were also leaders, Washington, D.C. leaders that were saying no to military, to the National Guard when when they were asked about it, even in the morning in case the protests got rowdy. So looking in context of June the 1st with the National Guard and one of the low points, really, I think if you talk to

General Milley, one of the low points for the military in quite some time, General Milley spent several days apologizing to troops worldwide. And what I thought to be a very moving display that talked about the greatness of the United States military and how even the most powerful general, he thinks he has to be accountable to every single serviceman and woman. And I thought that was very inspiring. But that is a context. Also talking about context, Michael Beschloss, let's just let's talk about context here. is he sat in front of a TV set for hours watching these riots, refusing to call them off, refusing when Kevin McCarthy was screaming at him from the Capitol, call your rioters off. And Trump said it's Antifa. And McCarthy swore at him saying, I'm here. I know who they are. They're your people. When Don Jr. was begging him to call them off, when Ivanka was begging to call them off, when when when one staff member after another

staff member was begging him to call them off, when his attorneys, Donald Trump didn't do that. So at the end of the day, we can talk about what did the FBI miss? What did the Capitol Hill? How did they fail? What did the National Guard do wrong? We can talk about all of that. Bottom line is very simple. Donald Trump could have stopped this any time he wanted, and he didn't want it to stop because he wanted the rioters to make it to the Capitol. He wanted them to get on the floor and he wanted them to stop the vote. I would go even one step further beyond you and Liz Cheney and at least ask the question, how much was Donald Trump the architect of all of this since even before the election of 2020? We know that he was talking in public saying the election is going to be rigged if I lose, trying to undermine confidence in the result.

And take a look at the things he was doing in plain sight in November and December. We talked about it on this program. into key roles in the Justice Department, in the Defense Department, other places in the government. Attorney General Barr quits for an unknown reason in December. I remember saying to my wife, you know, Trump must be planning something pretty bad if even Barr cannot stomach this and Barr has to get out before it happens. So we have to at least ask the question, did Donald Trump from at least election night plot to bring all of this about on the 6th of January? And all sorts of things that we see thanks to the January 6th committee, but some things we still don't know about yet. What kind of contact did he and his people have with domestic terrorists? And I think what

emerges is at least the strong possibility that what he has had in mind, just as David has been saying, was that on January 6th, there would be what he would call an uprising at the Capitol. There would be violence. In response to that, he might declare martial law and say we have to impound the election machines, as he raised more than once in these private conversations. And by sundown on the 6th of January, we might have had martial law in this country and a president and his allies. And remember, there were 120 members of the House who voted against accepting the Electoral College results. So this was not a narrow, focused plot. And had all of that happened, you could have had a president just like Mayor Giuliani after

9-11. Do you remember how he said, I have to stay in office even though my term expires on New Year's Day 2002? Trump would have said, I have to stay in office. There's martial law. We can't have an election under such circumstances. And the result could have been God knows what. Final point. Our founders were wise people, but even they, even they who were suspicious of human nature, always expected that men and women would never always be angels. Even they never imagined that you would have a president of the United States plotting

against our own political system. And I think we have to have a number of reforms in law to make sure it doesn't happen again. Agreed. We have, as a country, been blessed that we've been able to operate under the assumption that everybody that makes it to the Oval Office, at the end of the day, regardless of our political differences, has the best interest of the country at heart. It just wasn't the case over the past five years or so. And that is a serious problem. I will say, Mike,

coming up in news, you heard Michael talking about Donald Trump planning to plot this because the election, as he told everybody, would be rigged. Coming up in news right after the break,

we have an admission from him to one of his former chief of staffs that he knew he lost Arizona, knew he lost other states. And there's more of that to come. NBC News presidential historian Michael Beschloss and retired four-star Navy Admiral James Tavridis, thank you both very much for being on this morning. Happy New Year. And still ahead on Morning Joe, we'll take a look at the other newsmaking headlines this morning, including the latest on Kevin McCarthy's bid to become the next House speaker. The election is tomorrow and he still might not have enough votes. Plus, six years worth of former President Trump's tax returns have been released to the public. We're taking a look at the biggest takeaways, including huge write offs and a lack of charitable contributions.

Also had why Trump's reign of Republican terror is really ending. Matt Lewis headline from Matt. So Matt Lewis joins the conversation with his latest piece for The Daily Beast. You're watching Morning Joe. We will be right back. Before past the hour, here's a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. Three New York City police officers are out of the hospital and recovering after they were attacked during celebrations in Times Square on New Year's Eve. Investigators say the suspect wielding a machete approached the officers shortly before 10 p.m.

and swung at their heads before he was shot in the shoulder and apprehended. Police identified the suspect as Trevor Bigford, a 19 year old from Maine, and say federal agents interviewed him last month after a relative alerted them to his jihadist writings online. Investigators say they found a diary with notes they say may have indicated the suspect believed he was on a suicide mission. It's unclear if he will face state or federal charges or both. He remains in custody at the hospital while being treated for the gunshot wound to his shoulder. The man arrested on suspicion of killing four University of Idaho students nearly two months ago is expected to face charges of first-degree murder.

Police in Pennsylvania announced Friday that they had arrested 28-year-old Brian Koberger. He's a doctoral student studying criminology at Washington State University, just miles from the scene in Moscow, Idaho. Investigators say he has knowledge about forensics and the evidence prosecutors look for to win cases, as well as the mindsets of criminals. Lawmakers have not yet released key information in the case, including a motive or his possible relationship with the four victims. The four students were killed on November 13th at a house near campus. The suspect's family is cooperating with authorities in a statement released by the family's lawyers. The Koberger say they will, quote, let the legal process unfold and promote the presumption of innocence.

Ahead this morning, we're going to get a live report from Idaho and speak with a former FBI profiler about the apprehended suspect in the past 24 hours, actor Jeremy Renner is being listed in critical but stable condition this morning after an incident yesterday at his Nevada home while he was plowing snow. Renner was airlifted to a hospital to receive medical treatment where his spokesperson says he is receiving, quote, excellent care. Runner's Home is located about 25 miles outside of Reno, Nevada, in a region near Lake Tahoe that saw thousands of homes lose power during a storm on New Year's Eve. And the funeral for retired Pope Benedict XVI is scheduled to be held this Thursday in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican. Benedict was the first pope in nearly 600 years to resign his position rather than hold office for life. He was 95 years old. And this morning, we are also remembering legendary journalist and TV host Barbara Walters,

who died on Friday at the age of 93. During her career spanning more than five decades, Walters became known for her groundbreaking interviews with celebrities and world leaders. Walters was also the first woman to co-host the Today Show and anchor an evening news program. And if I may say, Barbara Walters was, of course, a trailblazer and icon and a legend and a fierce journalist, all those things. But she was also a woman who was way ahead of her time. She not only knew her value, she knew it enough to demand to be paid as much as other male journalists in the industry. And she was audacious and ambitious enough to demand more

money than anyone else in the industry. And I just want to say ambition was a word that even when I was starting out, that was sort of criticized if women used it, if women expressed ambition. And Barbara Walters really turned that concept around for me and for many other women. And by the way, she got that money. In 1976, she shattered glass ceiling after glass ceiling on Today Show as ABC News co-anchor of their evening news show and as the creator and driving force behind The View, a show like her entire professional career dedicated to promoting and uplifting women. She will be missed. Her legacy will be followed.

No doubt about it. It really is remarkable, the career that she had. And I've heard so many people celebrate her life. But she was just so far ahead of her time. Yeah. And was just fearless. Tough. Yeah. Absolutely. Coming up following the release of his tax returns, there are a lot of questions about what kind of audits Donald Trump was under while in office. Our next guest won a Pulitzer Prize for her work looking into Trump's finances. Plus, the latest from Ukraine amid a relentless series of Russian missile strikes, including an attack on New Year's Eve that left three civilians dead. Morning Joe is coming right back with much more. Welcome back to Morning Joe.

It is 44 past the hour. Look at that beautiful shot of New York City. The sun has yet to come out, but for many, it is time to get back to work after a lovely holiday, after years of legal wrangling and a Supreme Court case in their favor, the House Ways and Means Committee released six years of Donald Trump's taxes on Friday. The report reveals that Trump reported financial losses of over $30 million in 2015 and 2016, over $13 million in 2017, and losses losses close to five million in 2020. The former president reported positive incomes worth millions in both 2018 and 2019. We also learned that Trump paid very little in federal taxes while he was president.

Over the course of five years, Trump only paid $2 million in taxes. And in 2020, the Trumps claimed major losses in the U.S., which resulted in a $0 tax bill. They paid zero and a tax return of $5 million. Despite losing millions in the U.S., the Trumps did earn $78 million from foreign countries in 2020. And over the course of Trump's presidency, he received payments from at least 22 foreign countries, including China, Brazil, the U.K. and the Philippines. Let's bring in investigative reporter from The New York Times, Suzanne Craig. She won a Pulitzer Prize in 2019 for work looking into the finances and taxes of Donald Trump. And David Ignatius has the first question for you, Suzanne. David. Yeah, Suzanne, your work has been so superb on this. I ask you to stand back as you look at this latest release of Trump's tax information and assess Trump as a business person. I wonder if you looking at this material suspect that this great Trump empire is really a house of straw, that there's much less substance to it.

But I'd be interested in your assessment. Well, you know, it was interesting to get the latest taxes. And when we looked at them, you know, there are things that jump out, but it really does confirm simply a lifetime of businesses that he has run that he loses money on. And I'm going to step back and talk a little bit about sort of how he finances those because he has in his life had two real wellsprings of money. The first came from his father, who for Fred Trump's entire life supported

Donald Trump's business ventures. And a lot of, you know, most of that is punctuated by Fred Trump had his back every time Donald Trump lost money. And then when Fred Trump died, he and Donald Trump inherited, you know, tens, hundreds of millions of dollars. And the second wellspring comes from The Apprentice, from Mark Burnett. And that started in 2004. And we see not only a huge rush of money that he got from The Apprentice, but all the licensing deals. So he has these two wellsprings of money. And in between that, the businesses that he has had management control over almost without exception have lost money. He has plowed money into so many businesses.

We saw the casinos. And then in the 80s, you've got football teams, you've got airlines, they all lose money. And then he goes into golf courses later in his career. Most of those have lost money consistently and need capital injections. But these two pots of money have kept him going. And then we see into the White House. It was interesting when Mika was talking, there was one year he did well in 2018. He actually had a fair bit of positive taxable income. Most of that came from the sale that it was an investment that his father made in the early 1970s that was finally sold. So even into the White House, you see Fred Trump once again coming to boost Donald Trump's finances. And in all of the years he was in the White House, we also saw that he got money. It wasn't a huge amount, but there was money still coming in from trusts that were set up when he was younger.

Hey, Suzanne, good morning. It's Jonathan Lemire. Not much of a surprise that these don't show much the way of charitable contributions. But perhaps the biggest question involving Trump's finances since 2016 has been the idea of a foreign investment. Are these making money overseas and ties particularly to perhaps Russia. The tax returns show us a little bit of bank accounts in other countries, money come from other nations. Break it down for us. What does it mean? Is there anything here that's raising alarms? Yeah, the money that's coming in from overseas

is typically licensing fees, where he will license his name to a hotel, be it in Turkey or other countries. And he gets there typically. Sometimes they're a little bit more complicated than a one time fee, but usually a one time fee. And those have been lucrative for him. We saw, though, in 2020, the Times obtained decades of his taxes up to 2018. And what we saw was him entering the White House, that those licensing fees were starting to tail off. There was a lot of speculation, right, when he was running that he was actually running for president to bolster his name and so that he could use that potentially to profit from it. But we saw those drying up. But he does have bank accounts in many countries. That's not unusual. We found when we did when we did the 2020 piece and it's come up again in recent days that,

for example, he has a bank account in China. That on the surface, you know, there may be something suspicious there. There may not be. There's usually easier ways if you're going to bribe somebody than to just place the money in an account. You know, you could book a hotel and book every room in one of his hotels for for a weekend or a week. And that might be an easier way to get him money. There was no suggestion in the Ways and Means report that that account was suspicious, but they're there and he has them in many countries. And yet again, he felt the need to lie about it.

And he did. He said he closed it in 2000, I think, 15 or 16. And he didn't. It wasn't closed until a year or two later. As my mother would say about some people, they lie when telling the truth would be chronic. So Susan, finally, just to underline this, and I think it's important to underline this. After everything that you've looked through, after everything you've dug through his entire life financially, this is a guy who basically, I think it's fascinating, he was bailed out by his daddy when his daddy was alive. And he was bailed out by his daddy even when his daddy passed away, even inside the White House. Right. It was remarkable. I mean, he just like at every turn in his life, Fred Trump had his back. And it also I think the money that he got from Fred just goes to, you know, when you're taking risks, if you know somebody's there, it just it just corrupts the whole decision making process.

And I think you have to think some of that also led to just non-financial decisions that he's made, you know, in the White House. But it's incredible to see that Fred Trump once again was there for a significant. It was a 20 more than 20 million dollars that Donald Trump got that year from the sale of the property or around 20 million. Wow. Investigative reporter for The New York Times, Suzanne Craig, thank you very much for joining us with your reporting. Thanks a lot. Let's bring in now senior columnist for The Daily Beast, Matt Lewis, whose new piece for The Daily Beast is a title. Wait, hold on.

Before you say the title. What? I know. It's a good. My mom also said, don't count your chickens before they hatch. Yes. So what's he doing? I think he's counting his chickens.

He is not. Before they hatch. No. He says it's over. Yeah, but. I don't know that it's over. Let's hear from Matt's piece. Why Trump's reign of Republican terror is really ending.

And Matt, you write in part this. Any way you slice it, 2022 was a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year for Donald Trump. And there is little reason to think 2023 will be any better. To be sure, Trump could play Harry Houdini once again in 2023. The Access Hollywood tape that emerged in 2016 and the Capitol riot five years later earned lots of Republican outrage only for him to somehow emerge stronger than ever. But nothing we have seen in the last year or so suggests that he has the same energy or magic that allowed him to escape any accountability in the past. After years of failing upward, gravity finally reasserted itself in 2022.

The chickens, it seems, have come home to roost. Whether a fellow Republicans can successfully step into the void remains to be seen. And that is the question. Yeah, Matt, that is a question. Who is that person? Yeah, you look at certain polls, they still show Donald Trump comfortably ahead among rank and file Republicans. Yeah, you can't beat somebody with nobody. But I do say, Joe, whether whatever chicken analogies, right, if it's counting my chickens before they've hatched or if the chickens have come home to roost. I don't think this is based on the same naivete that I probably displayed on your show years earlier when I've maybe written off Donald Trump prematurely. And I think that's true for a few reasons. One, we this has been a long I don't have to tell you, this has been a long time coming.

And I went back and looked at Donald Trump's year. Twenty twenty two was a horrible year. And not just because of the midterms. It started off with a rally in Arizona that was horrible, that didn't live up to expectations. He seemed off. He seemed off of his game. Then he praised Vladimir Putin's brilliance, genius for going into Ukraine. We did see a little bit of the old magic with the Mar-a-Lago raid, actually. I think that might've been the best thing that happened to Donald Trump,

where it created a rally around the flag effect, but it was short-lived. And so I think the difference is, not only has this been a long time coming, but I'm not really suggesting anything magical. I'm not suggesting Republicans are going to come to their senses. What I am suggesting is human nature. I think people have finally gotten bored with him. I think we have short attention spans and I think he's gotten older. And I also think he's being supplanted. He's being supplanted by someone on the right. Ron DeSantis, I think that's the question. Does DeSantis run? But I also think Donald Trump is being supplanted in the, you know, whatSantis in the political realm. It's also people like Elon Musk, who I think are taking up sucking up the Twitter oxygen that Donald Trump used to receive. So it was a horrible year for Trump in 2022. Maybe he rebounds. But for the first time, I think he's starting to look old and not just old and A, but like old news. Hey, Matt, it's Jonathan. Certainly, this is the weakest Trump has been since January 7th. You make an important point there

about attention. This is what Republicans have been telling me for weeks now. They just can't believe Trump's not doing anything. He's just all these, he's generated all these bad headlines since launching his campaign, the dinner with a white supremacist, saying the Constitution should be terminated, the NFT nonsense. But he's not holding rallies. He's not holding events. He's not doing anything. He's having trouble attracting attention. He did offer a media availability, New Year's Eve in Mar-a-Lago.

And basically, all the media skipped it. Just a couple of fringe right-wing online publications went to hear him speak. So what if you what could he do to change that to get attention? Do you really believe that his the act is tired or is it perhaps when legal peril comes, if it's in a perverse way, it's an indictment that could actually get people to start talking and caring about Trump again? So, first of all, I think some of it, of course, has to do with his track record. You know, was it Bill Parcells who said, you are what your record says you are? And he's won in four elections, if you count the midterms. And the one win, I think, is an asterisk.

I mean, so we can't undermine or we can't downplay the effect that simply Republicans have gotten off the bandwagon because he's now a proven loser. But to your point, I do think he should get out there. Some of this may be laziness. It may be fatigue, boredom, not just boredom with Trump, but boredom from Trump. Why isn't he out there holding more rallies? That is a question that if he were more aggressive and more energetic, would he be in better shape?

I don't know that we can answer that. I do think, however, that his act is also tired, that the things that used to get him attention, you know, we've burned out our, you know, outrage receptors. And in a way, I think Donald Trump is a victim of his own success. I heard someone say this, make this point the other day. It's not original to me. But, you know, when you are an act like, say, The Beatles and you make this huge breakout and you redefine a genre, you know, like the TV show Seinfeld. I think John Podhoretz might have said this on his podcast, actually. When you have a show like Seinfeld, for example, that redefines the genre, at some point, everybody starts imitating you.

And it becomes harder to be cutting edge and to be relevant because you're not only competing against yourself, but you're competing against a whole bunch of imitators. And I think that is part of Donald Trump's problem is he is a victim of his own success. He is now facing a lot of imitators who are younger and more relevant than he is. So would he be doing better if he got out there and had more energy and gave it more effort? Probably. But I still don't know. He is running against extinction in a sense. Well, he also, if you want to do a musical analogy, I mean, with apologies to Elvis, he is Elvis 1977, and he's just singing all the old songs. I mean, Donald Trump's speech hasn't changed in six, seven years, and he's still looking backwards.

And he has like five different legal processes that could end up burning him terribly. And some lead to, you know, either criminal convictions even. So he's got a lot of stress in his life. And as Matt said, the act is well, I said Matt said that the acts and the act just getting old senior columnist for The Daily Beast, still the man with the best background. Matt Lewis. Matt Lewis. Thank you so much. David Ignatius, we don't know if Donald Trump is heading for the political exits or not. But you look at what foreign leaders are saying, what diplomats from our NATO countries are saying,

they're still fearful. I have a quote from a recent L.A. Times article here. It says, one diplomat who spoke with the Times pointed to months immediately after January 6th, 2021, when Republican leaders shifted from condemning Trump to taking his side. The period was crucially said because it illustrated that pressure to fall behind Trump was coming from the ground up. You know this far better than any of us. There is still a fear, despite what we may think here in America, that Donald Trump is going to return to the White House. I think that fear exists. I think, Joe, there's a deeper fear. If America is the kind of country

that to the astonishment of Europeans and people around the world could elect Donald Trump, what else could happen? What's happening on a deeper level in the United States? Is the movement that Trump ended up leading still as powerful and potentially dangerous as it was. I think that's what I hear when I talk to people overseas, the wellsprings of Trumpism, of make America great again, of turning inward this angry

America that Trump embodied. Is that still there? Is that still going to move out into a world that in so many ways, as you said at the beginning of this hour, is more idealistic, is moving in a better direction? Is America moving along with it?