Morning Joe - Morning Joe 12/27/22

Episode Date: December 27, 2022

Rep.-Elect George Santos admits to lying about his background

Did I embellish my resume? Yes, I did. And I'm sorry. And it shouldn't be done. But I'm still the same guy. I'm not a fraud. I'm not a cartoon character. I'm not some mythical creature that was invented. Quote, I'm not a fraud. A newly elected congressman admits to lying about his resume. What Republican George Santos is saying about the scrutiny over his college and work history, and what Republican leaders are saying about the controversy. Also this morning, with the war still raging on, Ukraine's foreign minister is hoping for peace talks by the end of February. We'll get expert analysis on that idea. Plus, parts of the United States are still under multiple feet of snow this

morning as the death toll from a major winter storm continues to climb. In western New York, rescue crews are going car by car searching for any stranded survivors. This as chaos unfolds at some of the nation's busiest airports. Thousands of flights have been canceled as many Americans try to head home after the holidays. We'll have the very latest on the travel delays. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Tuesday, December 27th. I'm Jonathan Lemire, in for Joe, Mika and Willie. Also with us at the table, MSNBC and NBC News National Affairs Analyst, Executive Editor of The Recount, host of the Hell in the High Water podcast, the man of many titles, John Heilman, and sitting here, professor at Princeton University, our friend Eddie Glaude, Jr.

Gentlemen, great to see you. Yes. I just like that. I'm in for Joe, Mika, Willie, Tinkers, Evers, Chance. I'm like, I got the, you know. Do the jobs of many people. Yes, man. You take it.

Do the jobs of many people. Wow, you fill a lot of space on the show. I wear many hats. Yes, man. You've taken so many people. You fill a lot of space on the show. I wear many hats. I do. Incredible. But we don't want to wait another moment before diving into our first story. Congressman-elect George Santos admitting that he lied about several key details in his experience and biography.

In an interview with the New York Post, Santos confessed to what he called embellishing his resume, but insists he will serve in the next Congress. Santos confessed he had never worked directly for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, chalking that fib up to a, quote, poor choice of words. He also admitted that he never graduated from any college, despite previously claiming to have received a degree from Baruch back in 2010. Quote, I didn't graduate from any institution of higher learning. I'm embarrassed and sorry for having embellished my resume. I own up to that. We do stupid things in life. Santos was also accused of lying about his family history, saying on his campaign website that his mother was Jewish

and his grandparents escaped the Nazis during World War II. I never claimed to be Jewish, Santos said. I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background, I said I was Jew-ish. Let's do that again. Santos says that he's not Jewish. He's Jew-ish. I'm glad we've cleared

that up. Santos's resume was first called into question earlier this month when a New York Times article pointed out several inconsistencies in his official biography. At the time, Santos's lawyer called the Times piece defamatory. Santos flipped a blue district that helped deliver the GOP the House majority. Republican leaders that backed him, including Kevin McCarthy and Elise Stefanik, have not yet commented on the controversy. But the Post also notes this. Senior House Republicans were apparently aware of the inaccuracies and embellishments in the representative-elect's resume. And that topic became a running joke, multiple insiders close to the House GOP leadership told the paper over the weekend. NBC News has attempted to reach Santos for comment overnight,

but did not immediately hear back. Elyse Jordan joins the table now as well. Elyse Jordan. I'm Jew-ish. Take it. I'm Jew-ish. Hey, why not? I think that's a great T-shirt. I just you can't believe it. I think of all the good people who hesitate to go into politics because they're scared about something they did in college. And then you've got this guy who claims to work for prestigious banks and have an animal welfare charity and have these homes when he's

living with his sister. And he just chalks it up to poor judgment. Well, poor judgment alas. I think there's a little bit of that involved here. John Howman, have we reached a new low? A new low? No, I think what we were talking about a second ago, talking about the Biden way as a strategy of contrasting itself against Donald Trump and deciding that it would be a good idea to say that, hey, you know, when he hangs out with neo-Nazis, we should say we're against Nazis. And when he says that we should tear down the Constitution, we are for the Constitution. It's a pretty simple playbook. We've already hit that. Like we hit bottom a while ago. I mean, this dude, look, it is the reality. I don't want to in any way make light of him because he is a comical example. Politics littered with examples of lying liars who lie.

And many who have lied about their resumes, the thing is, at least, usually you do get caught. Eventually, they do get caught. So it's like people who are scared that, like, hey, you know, if I had this problem in my past, maybe I shouldn't get into politics because someone will find out. They probably will. And this is what it looks like. You get made into a laughing stock if you decide to make up things whole cloth about your background. This gentleman will be the butt of jokes for the rest of his life, and rightly so. I will say about myself, I am not a journal, but I am a journalist. You know, isht, isht, you know? So, Eddie, obviously,

there will be jokes made about George Santos today, probably over the next four hours. But there is a more serious aspect of this, is the idea that the Republican leadership knew, turned a blind eye, apparently had a good laugh behind closed doors about it, and now have gone silent. Well, absolutely. Over the last six years in our politics, lying has become a kind of consistent feature of the landscape. It's been tolerated. It's been accepted. And let's be clear, lying has always been a part of politics, right? I mean, we know that. But to the extent to which we've experienced it over the last six years, it's been all kind of overwhelming. Right. In terms of the way in which conversation happens. But I think it's really important here that we have a political party operatives who knew this. They were OK with it. to these allegations, these revelations with regards to Santos. We have leadership, McCarthy and Stephanak, silent with regards to what is being revealed.

And it shows us, to my mind, a kind of level of corruption, a level of moral corruption, I should say, right, at the heart of a major political party that should raise a lot of alarms. You know, but it wasn't like Robert Zimmerman, the Democrat who was defeated by George Santos, Mr. Jew-ish. He didn't have he had money. There was a fair amount of outside spending, at least over a million dollars in outside spending. And yet not one opposition researcher or firm was enlisted to do a dossier on this guy or even just to, you know, run a credit check or. Yeah, I feel it's such malpractice. It also speaks to the corruption of money in politics where all this money is being spent, yet not for any purpose that actually serves the candidate. A failure of Democratic opposition research, a failure of

journalism, not to catch it initially, but obviously most of all, a failure of Republicans. The editorial board of the New York Daily News is calling for Santos to step aside after these revelations. It writes in part this, the man we know as George Santos, if that is indeed his name, is a work of fiction. When Santos takes the oath of office on January 3rd, there's no reason to think it will be worth anything. After all, the trust of his constituents meant nothing to him. Not that he should take any such oath. If Santos has any shred of decency, he'll step aside now that his con has been exposed, even if some of his voters are standing behind him. We're not holding our breath. If he doesn't, there doesn't

seem to be much anyone can do. lies got him elected but he has been duly elected all that's left is for his future colleagues to box him out and investigate him themselves and wait for the error to be corrected by the voters in two years time uh how much very briefly on this uh i mean the first of all is the further trumpification of the party, right? I got to go back in because my sins here are embellishing my resume. Now, I mean, embellish it. Eddie is a professor at Princeton, so he'll know that the embellishing tends to involve taking something that's a fact and buffing it up a little bit, making it seem a little bigger than this. The man claimed he said he worked for Goldman Sachs. He now says, says okay that was a poor choice of words i said i worked for goldman sachs what i meant was i worked for a company called link bridge that did business with goldman

sachs now that basically means that everybody who's ever worked at a starbucks can say that they work for goldman sachs because you know every starbucks has had a goldman sachs banker walk through at some point and buy a cup of coffee. That's I mean, when you get into this kind of trouble, I can't help it. It's just it takes you to places that are, you know, I mean, the guy obviously has no moral core whatsoever. And but it puts you in a position where you have to tell lies like this that are even in some ways better than the original lie, because they're much more outlandish. You should just be like, yeah, I made it all up and you suckers bought it. You didn't catch me. And now I'm elected member of Congress and I have two years to prove my worth. Come and get me.

Elise, can he survive? Will he take a seat? He absolutely will survive. Look at how at the beginning, you remember the cautionary tale of a woman named Marjorie Taylor Greene, a CrossFit lady from down in Georgia and how they said, oh, we're just going to, you know, basically neuter her. She'll have no power, no committees, we're just going to, you know, basically neuter her. She'll have no power, no committees. We'll just keep her. You know, this is ridiculous. The trash is coming out of her mouth today. She's a big power broker. Certainly feels like the further Trump vacation of the Republican Party. And speaking of the former president, he claims that he advised Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner not to join his fledgling 2024 presidential campaign. The former

president's assertions come after a new report from Olivia Nuzzi in New York Magazine that details a series of controversies that's plagued Trump's 2024 campaign, including that Kushner has refused requests to help his father-in-law. In an apparent response to the article, Trump posted on his social media site, writing in part this, Contrary to fake news reporting, I never asked Jared or Ivanka to be part of the 2024 campaign for president, and in fact, specifically asked them not to do it. Too mean and nasty with the fake corrupt news and having to deal with some absolutely horrendous sleazebags in the world of politics and beyond. There has never been anything like this ride before, and they should not be further subjected to it.

Last month, the New York Post also published an article claiming Ivanka and Jared wanted nothing to do with the campaign. According to the Post, insider sources claim Trump begged them to join him on stage at his campaign launch, but the pair refused. John Howman, this feels like a matter of protesting too much. Won't be long before Trump is saying about Jared and Ivanka what he would say about, you know, everybody else in these situations. Like, you know, Jared, Ivanka, never met him.

Hardly know him. Never, who are those people? I've never heard of those losers. You know, yes. I mean, look, Trump absolutely, positively, definitely tells everybody who turns him down from coming on the campaign that he doesn't want them to be on the campaign after they've told him that they won't be on the campaign. That seemed, actually, I believe that sequence of events.

I also think Olivia Nisi knows Donald Trump inside and out. And usually when her pieces come out, she usually has him dead to rights. And you can usually tell because the pushback on these, whatever Trump has really got you know when you know he got him he comes back hard in the way that he does here and calls him people fake news look this is a these these two are smart enough to now recognize how just how toxic their father is and they recognize the damage he's done to them and they i don't think they'll be seen anywhere closer than a barge pull away from him for the rest of eddie this is a template that was started right at the beginning. Let's remember, Roger Stone quit his 2015 campaign the next day Trump claimed he fired him.

So this is not something new, but perhaps read into us, if you will, just is the latest sign of just how troubled and disastrous this campaign has been in its early stages. I mean, yes, but you remember the first campaign in its early stages was troubled and disastrous, troubling and disastrous. And so we don't want to be we don't want to draw too many conclusions from this. But I link the Santos story to this story. Right. I'm thinking about Madison and the way in which he presumed that a certain kind of virtuous character was necessary for democracy to survive. We know Trump lies at the moment he opens his eyes every morning. A lie is being configured to be to enter in the world out of his mouth. And so here we see him sanctioning it all the way downstream, such that a guy in a local district in Long

Island and that will lie about everything being Jewish, going to baruch right and here he's gonna even lie about his kids it just shows you in so many ways uh how how desperate so at least stephanie grisham who knows the trumps as well as about anybody he she was press secretary for a while she was first lady melania trump's chief of staff. She tweeted last night saying, hi, this is when you know the story is true and clearly hit a nerve because of the rant that Trump went on social media, that he went on Truth Social and tweeted or truth many times about this. That's a clue that this is real. Well, I wonder what had to hurt more, Olivia Nuzzi comparing Donald Trump to Norma Desmond and Sunset Boulevard. Trump doesn Donald Trump to Norma Desmond and Sunset Boulevard.

Trump doesn't know who Norma Desmond is. Or Jared and Ivanka, which I would argue it's not that they suddenly realize he's so toxic. They have sovereign wealth money from various dictatorships and monarchies and despots. And why not just take those billions of dollars and run? And they'd rather be rich people than have power when before they chose being rich people who had power. So that shows, I guess, the toxicity of Trump's brand. Finally, Jared Kushner last spotted publicly at the World Cup final last week with Elon Musk in Qatar. Let's move on now. We're going to come back to this story a little later,

but let's get to the news from Ukraine. And there were reports this morning from Europe that Ukraine is striking more boldly at targets deep in Russian territory. The latest attack happened yesterday in southern Russia, where three servicemen were killed after air defenses shot down a Ukrainian drone. The long-range attacks have reportedly hit airfields in the heart of Russia, potentially complicating Moscow's campaign of aiming cruise missile strikes at Ukraine's energy grid. Some analysts say Kyiv has assessed that Moscow's military is fighting at the limits of its conventional capabilities, spurring bolder attacks. Meanwhile, Ukraine now says it wants to hold a peace summit by the end of February, about one year after Russia first invaded the country. It's with the goal of ending the war, but without the participation of Russia. According to the Associated Press, Ukraine's

foreign minister hopes the summit will take place at the United Nations, with Secretary General Antonio Guterres as possible mediator. He emphasized the only way Russia will be invited to the summit is if Moscow is first prosecuted for war crimes in an international court. He also says Ukraine will do whatever it takes to win the war this upcoming year. Joining us now to talk about this is former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor and President of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haass. Mr. Ambassador, let's start with you with that idea of a peace summit, greeted with some real skepticism that it could be

successful if Russia's not involved. But what do you read into the offer at its face value, but also what it's telling us about the state of the war? Well, John, President Zelensky made this point when he was here, when he was in Washington last week. He mentioned something about a peace summit, and they apparently had a conversation during their discussion with President Biden. So this has been out there. Clearly, the Ukrainians want to demonstrate that they're willing to have conversations when certain things have happened, that is, when the Russians have gotten out of their country. They do not want to cede to Russia territory, land, part of their country to reward the Russians

for invading. So this is the basis for their suggestion on a peace summit. So, Richard, let's get you to weigh in on this as well. The Americans and Western allies have been clear that there won't be any talk of peace, of bringing this war to conclusion, unless Kiev says they're on board. Well, Kiev is sort of suggesting they're on board, but with, you know, a requirement for a peace talk that seems unlikely if Russia is not going to participate and they're not going to be probably prosecuted for war crimes between now and February. So what do you think of this?

And where does it tell you where Kiev's head is at the moment in terms of how they see this war almost a year in? Jonathan, this is not about peace. This is not about diplomacy. This is about putting Russia in the dock. This is, if you will, the appearance of not being against diplomacy, but neither side is ready to negotiate. This war has a long ways to go. Anytime you set serious preconditions for peace talks, usually it says you're not ready to have them. Neither side's ready to have them. Ukraine wants its territory back. They want economic reparations. They want accountability for war crimes. Vladimir Putin is not ready

to satisfy them on any of those counts, much less all of them. So this war is going to go on, and this is simply a way to appear to be in favor of peace rather than to be serious about it. Ambassador Taylor, Elise Jordan here. You know the situation in Ukraine and all of the players, as well as anyone on the world stage. If you had to recommend a course forward for the United States, what would you recommend as to our strategy? Do you think that the Biden administration is in a strong place now doing as good as could be done under difficult situations? Or how would you tweak the policy? At least I would tweak the policy in the following way. I would allow the Ukrainians the weapons that they need to push the Russians out of their country.

That is, there's some long-range weapons that the administration has not yet been willing to give the Ukrainians. There are other weapons that they need to be able to defend themselves against these air attacks. Again, the Russians are attacking civilian targets, not military. They're losing on the ground and on the military side. The only thing they can do is attack undefended infrastructure, energy infrastructure, so that the Ukrainians are cold and thirsty and freezing during the winter. This is the only thing the Russians can do. So I would allow the Ukrainians to have the air defense that they need and the long range weapons that they need to go deep into the Russian occupied, the occupied part of Ukraine. And they can then the Ukrainians can then push the Russians out. They also need things that they don't yet have, which are tanks and aircraft.

And that's what that's the tweak I would make. Hey, Richard Haas, Heilman here. I've heard you now, both way too early on this show, echo my reaction to this peace summit notion, which is there's this giant poison pill in the middle of it. And the fact that there's not going to be a peace summit of any meaningful kind does suggest, and that neither side is going to negotiate in a meaningful way, suggests that this is going to be a war that someone's going to win eventually. As we've seen now, we're about a year in. How long can this go on? I mean, is this a thing that is going to be, you think, a years-long low-grade conflict? Or is this a thing where if, given the kind of success, surprising success that Ukraine's had over the last year, if they can get through this winter,

there's a chance they could actually win this war within the next calendar year before they get to another winter? I don't think anyone's going to win it in 2023, John. Think about it. This war in some ways has been going on for eight years already. That's when Russia moved against Crimea and parts of the east of of ukraine i don't think either side has the military capability to totally defeat the the other i think the war continues probably at a lower level of intensity for some for some time and my guess is it only stops when either putin decides it's less costly for him to almost do. Remember, Senator Aiken declaring victory and at some point he decides it's better to declare victory than

face a total loss, maybe more likely told Putin's no longer in power. So I actually think this war goes on for years and becomes the backdrop to Europe for a long time to come. Sorry to be so pessimistic in this post-Christmas moment, but I think that's probably the cold reality. And the next possible tension point in the conflict among Kiev and its allies, what we're seeing here, Ukraine growing bolder in their attacks within Russia and asking the United States for more weapons where they can do that more frequently. So far, Washington holding off. Richard Haass and former Ambassador Bill Taylor, thank you both. We'll have more on the war in Ukraine a little later in the show. Meanwhile, back here at home,

countless towns across the country are still in the process of dealing with this weekend's massive winter storm. NBC News has now confirmed that at least 57 people have died nationwide from weather-related emergencies this weekend, and that includes 27 alone in western New York's Erie County. Snow continued to fall in the region Monday, and officials are expecting an additional 8 to 12 inches into this afternoon. An emergency driving ban remains in place in the Buffalo area as authorities plead with residents to stay home so they can continue clearing the snow. Crews are currently focused on plowing streets for ambulances, police, rescue vehicles, and medical workers.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul said that scores and scores of vehicles abandoned in ditches and snowbanks, including some snow plows and rescue vehicles that are trapped, are complicating rescue efforts. Hochul also confirmed yesterday that the Biden administration has declared an emergency disaster declaration for the area. And in a show of support, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy has deployed New Jersey Task Force One, an urban search and rescue team, to western New York. Because as Murphy put it, that's what neighbors do. Meanwhile, the holiday travel chaos continues from that storm as more than 17,000 flights have been canceled in nearly a week and thousands more have been delayed. Southwest Airlines is by far the most disrupted carrier. In the last five days, it has canceled about 8,000 flights. According to the flight

tracking app FlightAware, Southwest says, because those are the cancellations, Southwest says it plans to operate just over one-third of its typical schedule for the next two days in an effort to recover, but warned that the reduced schedule could be extended even further. Let's go to meteorologist Angie Lassman for the forecast. Angie, we just heard more snow in the Buffalo area today. When is relief coming? Yeah, relief is on the way. We're going to see improvements there, but we've got a couple of other weather stories to talk about, too, that may cause some travel trouble out west. This is that next storm we're going to watch moving from the Pacific onshore. This is, of course, Times Square, which in the coming days

will be packed and will be warm, but also wet. I'll tell you about that here in a moment. But first, there is that satellite and radar, Buffalo, continuing to see those really intense lake effect snow bands. All day yesterday, it was basically almost 72 hours of continuous lake effect snow, and more than 36 hours of that was with continuous blizzard conditions. So they're still in the thick of it. They're going to continue to pick up on maybe five to 10 more inches of snow here. By the time we get into the evening hours, we'll start to see things calm down. So that's good news for them. And there's that storm I referenced on the West Coast. That is what we'll be watching here to continue to move on shore and bring flooding conditions to places like Oregon

and Washington and California. But we've got warmer air that is settling in for much of the eastern half of the country. It's going to be a quieter couple of days for folks in places like Lexington. Atlanta will be into the low 30s right now. But look what happens here as we get through the next couple of days. 60 in Nashville on Thursday. Buffalo, that's one of, of course, the places that we really need to thaw out. Upper 30s Wednesday, mid 40s by Thursday and into the 60s on Friday. Now we will watch for some minor flooding with that snow melt. So just something to be aware of when we have all that snow on the ground currently. Here's a look at the holiday hub impacts. We've got through one

holiday weekend. We have another on the way. East Coast looks good, especially today. The West Coast, places like San Francisco, Los Angeles could see a couple of delays with that heavy rain working on. We have an atmospheric river that's just fueling us with plenty of moisture to work on shore again from Seattle all the way to Los Angeles and as far south as San Diego. California, of course, needs the rain, but we know that when it comes in high amounts that we could definitely see some of that flooding concern, the flash flooding concern, and especially in those burn scar areas, Jonathan. Angie Lastman, thank you so very much. We'll have an update from Western New York later in the show. China is set to drop COVID quarantine requirements for travelers arriving in the country starting next month. That's seen as a major step

toward China fully reopening its borders to the rest of the world after nearly three years. China's National Health Commission said yesterday that travelers will only be required to show a negative COVID test obtained within 48 hours before arriving. Currently, travelers are subject to five days of hotel quarantine and three days of self-isolation at home. Chinese officials also say restrictions on airlines over the number of international flights and passenger capacity will also be lifted. The changes are part of a broader move by the government to end what's left of its zero COVID policy, which was abruptly abandoned earlier this month following nationwide protests over its social and economic challenges. Another China story we're following.

The White House is responding after China's military moved fighter jets and ships toward Taiwan. A statement from a White House National Security Council spokesman reads in part this. The United States is concerned by the People's Republic of China's provocative military activity near Taiwan, which is destabilizing, risks miscalculations, and undermines regional peace and stability. Over 70 Chinese warplanes were detected flying around Taiwan and seven naval vessels in the surrounding waters as well. A Chinese military spokesman said in an online statement that Sunday's Joint Combat Readiness Patrol and live firing drill was a response to escalating collusion and provocation by the U.S. and Taiwan, though he didn't elaborate.

Let's bring in former Supreme Allied commander of NATO, retired four star Navy Admiral James Stavridis. He is chief international analyst for NBC News. Admiral Stavridis, always so good to see you. Let's get your reaction there to this drill from China, their claims of U.S. provocation. There's been a lot of talk that Xi Jinping, of course, is eyeing Taiwan, that he believes it should be part of China. What does this step tell you? Is he taking another move down that path? I think there are three things at play here. One, you spoke of a moment ago, Jonathan, end of the COVID policy. That's good news for the global economy, good news generally within China. But there's going to be bad news. There's going to be a lot of deaths as a result

of that. The Chinese population largely unvaccinated, poor vaccines to begin with. So what does Xi Jinping want to do? He wants to distract the internal population from those problems. So that's point one. Point two, Xi consolidated power completely in October. He now is in a position to simply turn the whole ship, if you'll allow me a nautical metaphor, all the way back around on COVID. And I think thirdly, he is watching the U.S. Washington, D.C. spending bills, which are putting out a lot of, they use the word collusion, read arms transferred, arms sales, advanced technology training. So I think, Jonathan, those three factors have come together to up the ante for the Chinese to do this kind of aggressive, fairly provocative set of moves in the Taiwan Strait. I'll close with this. I don't

see it as a precursor to a sudden military move on taiwan that would be a huge mistake for beijing i think she knows that quite well admiral this is eddie good morning so given what you've just laid out as you as clearly as you as you often do what should be the biden's administration's response to to what china has done and is continuing to do uh great to see you, Professor. First and foremost, what the Biden administration should do is watch what's happening in Ukraine and learn the lessons. And I think the lessons we're seeing already are get there early, get the equipment moving, provide the training, encourage, in this case, the Taiwanese to make the commitment to defend themselves. Another story kind of bubbling along this morning is that Taiwan has just raised the

length of time for mandatory conscription. A draft used to be four months. Now it's going to be a year minimum for these young men and women. And as a result, they're preparing. They should be in the international marketplace. They're a very rich country, maybe the 20th largest economy in the world standalone. They can afford the weapons systems they need. We had to facilitate that process. So I think the lesson for the Biden administration, look at Ukraine, get the equipment, the training in place. Eddie, that creates deterrence that avoids war. That's the path the Biden administration is on. It's a smart path.

We mentioned before the break, Elise, that we had some sounds, some voices we wanted to play that are reflective about the upcoming debate in Congress about funding to Ukraine? Well, we have footage from focus groups that we did in Pittsburgh right before the election in November. And we heard from voters who were Republicans about how they view the debate about the war in Ukraine. And you can see from their beliefs just what we're going to be talking about when Congress debates increased funding to Ukraine. So let's listen to and watch those voters as they debate the war. The Ukraine war. Ukraine is, in my opinion, from everything I've gathered, is basically a sort of it's sort of like a money laundering front for all deep state activities. They launder money. Why are we sending what is it? How many billions of dollars over there when Florida needs like over eight, 10 bucks? Can we get them anything? How come Ukraine's

always a priority? Right. The Bidens are tied to Ukraine. Exactly. There's, they served on the board of, what was it? A recent oil company. Right, the oil companies and all that. Like, there's just so much attached to Ukraine.

Yes. That, and I also, from what I understand, at least in, you know, I go down the rabbit hole pretty far.

I don't know about everybody else. Where do you like to go down the rabbit hole? I use different social media sites. I kind of do my own, I guess, recon, and I pull things from different sources. There's a handful that I like to use. What are the favorites?

I use True Social now that it's sort of getting some traction a lot. I've used, like, Telegram. I've been on Gab. Twitter. still use Twitter, things like that. A little bit of everything, you know, and I know there's like smear stuff about like, I know there's ads about Gab and stuff with like Mastriano, but like, none of that's ever true. Everything's just a smear campaign with these ads and all that all the time. You can't... So Kim agrees with you. Kim, what he's saying resonates with you not only hunter we have john kerry theresa heinz's son right can't forget that involved uh nancy pelosi's son is this ukraine yeah this is i think that actually

heinz right heinz he uh the son theres Teresa's son, he actually didn't get involved in the Ukraine stuff. He said specifically he's not doing that. Did he remove himself in time? Is that what it was? But what specifically the deep state with Ukraine? I'm concerned about the bio labs there. The purpose of those bio labs. That's the one thing Putin has highlighted that I agree with. These are fair points, but I think what you're missing is that any of the criticism of Ukraine goes at least double for Russia. There's not a clear, you know, white hat traditional cowboy good guy versus bad guy. it is gray it's it's more like bad guy

versus worse and the enemy of my enemy is my friend and they say there's corruption there right and therefore we have to side with the far worse person that's attacking them there's just no logic in that well so adam real quickly though i want to say that we brought Putin to this point when we forced the issue with NATO. We could open up our own domestic energy. I think at the end of the day, for Putin, this is all about energy. The land bridge to Europe via the Crimea access and whatnot, it's all about pipelines, I think, that he wants to put to Europe. Potentially some North Africa. But, I mean, that he wants to put to Europe, potentially some North Africa. But I mean,

Russia is a petrol state. They get, I think, over 60 percent of their GDP is from oil and natural gas. And so actually what Biden did in the world community with the sanctions, they drove up the cost of Putin's oil and created, he's flush with cash right now to spend on new weaponry, new missiles, and to resupply his war efforts. So I think the biggest thing we could do at this point, because we're out of a list of good options, but we could open up our own domestic energy supplies 100%. And I think we're now seeing just how much energy security is national security. And I mean, I feel like just kind of bringing it back to a little bit of a bigger picture with the Democrats and like all these problems, well, not all, but I feel like a lot of these problems are stemming from their green agenda and their ideological, almost near religious adherence to wanting to remake our economy into some green economy, which isn't going to happen.

And if you look into these technologies, even just a little bit under the surface, like wind and solar and whatnot, it's not feasible. It's not feasible. It's not feasible. And they still, they don't even want to take a look at nuclear, which is something that could be very clean if done correctly. So it's, again, it's almost religious in nature to me, their ideological adherence to it. So these are the issues that are animating Republican voters on the far right who are echoing some of the propaganda that's coming out of Russia. Visa B, the chem labs that they claim the United States is funding, which the U.S. is only funded biological labs with public health aims in mind. They were not funding research of chemical weapons in Ukraine. But this is the standpoint that Republican leadership, they're reflecting when they are saying they don't want

more funding for Ukraine. So how does this influence the next Congress? Well, I don't know the answer to that question, but I know Jim Stavridis is going to have something smart to say to this broader question, which pivots off the Middle East thing and kind of throws it even, I'll cast it in a larger net here. You know, those are Republican voters. They're saying things that are a mixture of misinformation, just misperception, misunderstanding, and fact. You know, there's always, when you go into focus groups, you find people have this mix of things that they say that sometimes have great perspective and wisdom, and sometimes they're a little confused, and sometimes they've been fed a line. And that's not just true of Republicans, Jim. It's also true of Democrats. The fact is

that Americans have been for a long time always a little bit wary about spending American blood and treasure on foreign adventures and even on defending abstract values like democracy. So if you're sitting in front of that group or really any group of American voters as we head into the second year of this war with Ukraine, what do you say to them about why their tax dollars should be spent to help Ukraine fight off Russia? Why is that essential to their lives, not just to the cause of democracy in the abstract? Step one, listen respectfully. We may hear those bits of propaganda. We may hear this sort of conspiracy theorem, miasma that's floating around out there.

But you've got to start by listening and then politely, in a way walk through the facts shine light as best you can so that's really point one and by the way John you know this well you're going to see cracking in that Ukrainian support not only on the right you're going to see it on the left and we've already seen that from uh very uh very much folks on the far left of the political spectrum who quite correctly asked the question. Billions and billions to Ukraine. Why not? You heard it in that focus group. Why not Florida, my native state, which got hammered by hurricanes, for example? So listen respectfully. No, it's going to come from both sides. And then the second point i think this is

the key thing your question what do you say to them and i think you you begin by saying look russia is a malignant force under vladimir putin they know that you heard it in their comments i think you work on that aspect you talk about the war crimes, the rape, the torture, the invasion. Who invaded who? This is magical thinking to say, oh, this is something we push Putin in a corner and therefore he invades Ukraine. So make the tactical point that by sending these weapons, by sending these dollars, we limit, we weaken this malignant force in the world and then i think these are smart folks and you can go to them and say let's look at history here a hundred years ago we had this choice we were given the opportunity to stay after the first world war in

the 1920s in europe we were given the opportunity to be part of the League of Nations. What did we do? United States, we came home. We went, we followed that isolationist instinct that's part of our politics, part of our DNA. How'd that work out? Well, we cracked the global economy, Great Depression, and you can drop a plumb line to fascism in the second world war those are facts that's what happens when you simply cede to an awful malignant force like vladimir putin so long answer apologies but you need to listen put truth in front of it and use history to try and make the case and you're going to need to do that on both sides of the aisle. So, Admiral, you just taught me a lesson because as I was listening to the focus group,

I was sitting here getting really upset. But you told me to listen respectfully. I get that. I get that. But at least you asked the question, where are you getting your information? And that list was fascinating. So, you know, Admiral said, listen, tell us the facts, the truth, and then deep dive into history. Now, the last two seem to run up against these, the sources of the information. What did you make? Because you asked the question, where are you getting your information? Twitch, what is it?

Gab. Gab. Truth Social. Truth Social, Twitter. the rabbit hole yeah well we live in such a society that is completely siloed off from what we don't want to hear and one side is hearing one narrative the other side here's another narrative maybe somewhere in the middle there's uh you know more of a mainstream news operation going on but that's the problem when you have uh you know both camps both sides of the polarization listening to the

most extreme versions of whatever their truth is and they never come across you know any of what the other side uh you know might be more fact-based. Because I think that it's completely right to debate, is it worth sending American dollars, American blood and treasure to Ukraine? They absolutely should be having that debate and asking that question. But when it turns to parroting what Russia is pushing as their war aims, that's when it's problematic because this is an information war landscape at this stage. You've seen how Zelensky has leveraged the power of his

podium to get international support around the Ukrainians. Also, his calls is just, but we have to remember that this is an info war space too. I just looked at the gap. I just looked at GAB for the first time. Literally, I didn't even know it before I saw that. First thing I came up was a picture of the Capitol. This is a Ukrainian bank. Then the second thing that came up is that if you're looting during a snowstorm, you must be the N word. Yeah, that's the source of the information.

That is where that's the rabbit hole. That's and that is one of the problems here. And some of the opinions and voices we just heard from that focus group hard probably for a lot of listeners of this show uh to hear uh but important because at least uh it's so reflective of what we're going to hear so far great work on the focus group look at the bright side gab just got another subscriber important important focus group at least thank you for that chargers hurry it up and off and now he gets it here. Eckler, touchdown Los Angeles. And that was the second of a pair of rushing touchdowns scored by Chargers running back Austin Eckler

in an easy and pretty boring win over the Indianapolis Colts last night. Eckler, who had 18 carries for 67 yards, is the fourth player in 15 years to score at least 15 touchdowns in back-to-back seasons and needs one more reception to post the sixth 100-catch season by a running back that's ever in the history of the NFL. Meanwhile, Colts quarterback Nick Foles, in his first start for Indianapolis, tossed three interceptions and was sacked seven times by the LA defense. I still do not understand how he beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl. Setting that aside, the Colts' lone field goal

came after a scary moment in the second quarter that led to an ejection of LA's Pro Bowl safety, Derwin James, for that vicious helmet-to-helmet hit. Look at this. I mean, that is everything you can't do with a tackle. That hit left both players with concussions. The defensive player ejected. Chargers win 20 to3 and punch a ticket for the playoffs for the first time since 2018.

Meanwhile, in Miami, Dolphins quarterback Tua Tugavailoa is in the concussion protocol for the second time this season. Miami's coach revealed yesterday that Tua had concussion symptoms following Sunday's loss to the Green Bay Packers. The Dolphins could still make the playoffs if they win both of their final two matchups, or if they win one game and the New York Jets lose one of theirs. Miami is in New England this weekend. The Jets expect a boost this Sunday against the Seahawks with the return of quarterback Mike White,

who missed the last two weeks with broken ribs, suffered against the Buffalo Bills earlier this month. Eddie, the injury to Tua there certainly could change the playoff picture in the AFC. But more importantly, this is, I believe, his third concussion of the season, second time in protocols. There was that controversy earlier this year where he was clearly showing symptoms of a concussion, but yet still allowed to play for a while in that game. There are longer, bigger, more important things than playoff seating right here. This is about a man's long-term health. Absolutely. You and I love football, but, you know, I think Charles Whitson, the Hall of Famer, put it perfectly on Twitter the other day.

Yeah, last night he said, if it's true, he was still saying, what have you heard the news about? Tua has to think long and hard about ever playing this game again. And I think that's some advice that Tua needs to take serious. Yeah, he's had a great season, but one has to wonder if he should be suiting up at least this year, if not further. Let's turn back to politics now. Politics Now and a report in the New York Times that delves into the results of the last election, detailing how a small group of voters, quote, broke with its own voting history to reject openly extremist Republican candidates, at least partly out of concern for the health of the political system. According to the paper, a narrow but consequential slice of the electorate that went against its own voting history this year in order to reject Republican candidates who sought control over elections, at least in part out of concern

for the health of the political system and the future of democracy. Those decisions, according to The Times, suggest a possible ceiling on the appeal of extreme partisanship, one that prevented in this cycle the worst fears for the health of democracy from being realized. But the Times also warns this. While election deniers suffered losses across the board in states like Nevada and Arizona, they still won nearly half the vote. John Heilman, let's get your take on this. I mean, we have noted a lot on this show that the most high-profile election deniers went down to defeat.

And that's in part because of voters like these. That said, a lot of House Republicans were election deniers and still got elected. Where does things stand? I mean, the Republican Party, the elected Republican Party that controls the House of Representatives is a party that's basically dominated in its elected, in that elected body, the lower chamber, by free-range insurrectionists, so people who are either implicitly and sometimes explicitly active or passive, aiders and abettors of the cause of trying to deny Joe Biden the presidency, even though he'd won a free and fair election in 2020. So anybody who says, you know, we're out of the woods is really lost. I mean, truth is i i like a lot of people

we all took a deep cleansing breath after after november because of our fears of what might happen and it was great to see you know out front people who actually were on the capitol steps on on uh on january 6th we're going to see those people get beat uh when they ran for for seats it was nice to see uh out front election deniers get beat it was also great to see a lot of Republicans who ran and suggested that they might not accept the results of the election, then conceding gracefully when they when they lost. It was a great, great moment for American democracy. And yet, you know, the cause of preserving democracy is an ongoing one. The fight is still is still at our front door. And, you know, you look up at people like Marjorie Taylor Greene,

you look up at Matt Gaetz, you look up at people on the Republican Party who not only are still members of the party, not only still hold their seats in Congress, but continue to have more power, more sway, have Kevin McCarthy by the, you know, the sensitive parts, the parts that aren't supposed to be grabbed quite so vigorously. They have, you know, they have them. They have that. There's still a party that's like that. So it's still the dominant force in that party. So that, you know, that's where we are. And I think this Times piece is very, is very good and very careful in pointing out that, you know, that there was a that disaster was averted. But if we pretend like all is well and that we can now go about go about our business, we're making a big mistake. Also, absolutely. I mean, but when we think about U.S. history, right, that's always been the case.

I mean, when we think about the collapse of radical reconstruction and those persons who were in some ways against the South, but in some ways, shall we say, identified with the underlying assumptions that organized the South. They didn't want, you know, to overthrow the government, but they were somehow in collusion. And so we call them copperheads during the context of the war. But anyway, in this context, it seems to me that we have a desire to move from personality, but still the embrace of policy. We don't want Trump, but we still want the things that he stood for. What do you make, Elise, and you helped me with this, of what seems to be a longing for a reasonable Republican Party? We're constantly looking for those elements, those people who seem to suggest that the Republican Party has righted itself, when over and over again, we see,

right, not only these elements like Marjorie Taylor Greene, but we see folk who are longing still for the policies of Trump, but not just the personnel. Well, I think baseline people who follow politics closely know that a two party system, a healthy two party system is important for the preservation of democracy. We would like to have two functioning political parties that vet candidates, that don't put Donald Trump on the debate stage and allow him to sweep the nomination in the first place. But I digress. I think that is the you know, that's the impulse. But it's not necessarily reflected. It's not what the voters want. They still want the insurgent. They want taking on the taking on the person who's going to take on the system who challenges authority. They want someone who's going to fight. And that was what propelled Donald Trump on so many levels. And looking to this next field, is there going to be someone who is seen as

that kind of fighter and willing to take on, quote, which has changed now uh you know back then it was oh against political correctness and now it's turned into this culture war on woke but who is going to be that candidate in 2024. but as we speak of the future of the republican party a number of republicans are making moves towards entering the 2024 primary field against Donald Trump, reflecting a growing sense in the GOP that the former president is far from a lock for the party's nomination. According to the Washington Post, potential Republican rivals to Donald Trump are ramping up their 2024 maneuverings,

reflecting a growing sense in the party that the former president is far from the inevitable nominee after a midterm election in which he was blamed for many of the party's woes. The paper continues. Both publicly and behind the scenes, major Republican figures are laying the foundations for potential campaigns. Many operatives said they see benefits to sitting back and methodically preparing while Trump deals with growing problems. Let's bring into the conversation Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post and an MSNBC political analyst, Eugene Robinson, as well as senior columnist for The Daily Beast, Matt Lewis.

Matt, in your latest piece titled, These Doomed Candidates Could Help Trump Survive a primary, you write in part this, choosing to run in a crowded primary against Trump in 2024 is a very different moral choice than it was in 2016. Unless a candidate has a credible path, it's almost certainly going to help Trump. Candidates choosing to run for the GOP nod in 2024 must be realistic about their chances of winning and about the spillover effect of their vanity project. Nikki Haley fits in this category. By trying to be all things to all people, she has, I suspect, managed to alienate most Trumpers and never Trumpers. She probably can't win, but she can steal some votes from someone like DeSantis, which is why

Trump's minions are reportedly praying she runs. Since there are numerous incentives to run, maybe the more realistic plea would be for likely doomed Republicans to get running for president out of their system in 2023, and then, assuming they don't game steam, drop out before the first primary votes are cast in 2024. If potential candidates really love this country, they need to consider sitting this one out

or getting out of the way early to present disaster. Otherwise, we all get rolled. So Matt, let's dig into this a little more. Obviously, there is this theory that Trump has, even if his support has slipped, has an unshakable base, and that's going to stay with him wherever. So therefore, the if his support has slipped, has an unshakable base and that's going to stay with him wherever. So therefore, the more diluted the field, the better chance that base is enough

to get elected. But how do you make the argument? I mean, you just made it in the piece, but you think you're going to persuade a Nikki Haley or Mike Pompeo or Mike Pence, someone who perhaps has spent their whole life wanting to be in the White House, not to run? It's that's a tough one, right? I mean, this is like game theory. It's basically the tragedy of tragedy of the commons. That collective action problem, I guess, is the technical term, right? So what is individually Nikki Haley has an incentive to run for president, even if she doesn't win, she becomes more famous, more popular, her brand increases. And a lot of Republicans have that same, I would say, perverse incentive. But collectively, it's bad for the country and,

I would argue, the Republican Party. And so the question is, have we learned anything since 2016? I think in 2016, there was a very big field. What that meant was that Donald Trump could win with a plurality. He didn't have a majority of vote for him no matter what. He could literally shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and about 30 to 35 percent of the Republican Party would vote for him. There are other Republicans who they'll never vote for Liz Cheney or Larry Hogan, but they might vote for someone, I don't know, like a Ron DeSantis. So the real question, and this is an obvious point, it's not original to me, but I do think it's profound. I don't think we realize how quickly this is going to happen in 2023. And the fact is, it's kind of predictive. If there is a large field, Donald Trump will very likely be the Republican nominee. If there's a small field, if it's, you know, one or two or three candidates, then Donald Trump probably won't pay. And so the

question is, do these Republicans love their country or their party more than they love their own selfish ambition? Well, Matt, first of all, before we get to Gene, I just got to stick with you on this question, partly because I'm so entranced by the tableau there. You've got we've got Joe Didion on one side. I'll be out all night last night because I don't imagine that's your normal. You're projecting your normal 7, 10 a.m. attire, unless maybe it is. If that was you. Am I right in saying that's a teal velvet dinner jacket? Let's just say mistakes were made.

It's the season. We're heading into New Year. So what happens in West Virginia stays in West Virginia. I would say if you came out with a lit cigarette and an empty martini shaker, that'd be like the coolest look I've ever seen. But here's the thing about your assessment of the Republican Party. It's always this question, you know, have we learned anything? You know, the problem of collective action in parties is that, you know, you could get 20 Republicans who all say, we have learned a lot. We must stop Donald Trump. And we also have learned that it would be better if there were fewer candidates rather than more. And yet, who's going to say that I'm not the right one to be the one?

I'm the only one who can beat Donald Trump. They seriously believe that whoever that individual is, whether it's Nikki Haley or Mike Pence or Ron DeSantis. And so the problem you have is that the parties are in control, as you know, from the top down. There's not somebody making these decisions. If you were in charge, you would do it a certain way. You might be right, but that's not how parties on either side work anymore. And so you're kind of doomed in some sense by the internal Democratic functioning. I say small d democratic functioning of these parties to often get yourself into trouble, which is where Republicans could very well end up. The weaker Trump looks,

the more people run against him, the more run against him, the more likely is he wins. Yeah, that's the irony, right? That Donald Trump, by looking so weak, has invited the very environment, the scenario whereby he actually might have a chance to win. Look, I think you're right. There are tremendous incentives for people to run for office. In some cases, let's be honest, the experts don't know. The smoke-filled room, which I'm a fan of, generally speaking, thought Rick Perry was going to be president. You know, thought you get on the list of people that we assumed would be president. And then you've got other folks who come out of nowhere like Donald Trump.

And so the experts aren't great at this top-down, you know, hand-picked sort of thing either. So I think what we ought to do is say, OK, if you want to run for president, go ahead. Dip your toes in. It's 2023 almost. Run for president. But here's the thing. Know when to pull the ripcord. Don't do this Marco Rubio. You know, we're going to come in fourth place in New Hampshire. They're going to come in third place in Iowa or whatever that was. You know, Rudy Giuliani thinking you can wait till Florida. Don't do that because the stakes are so high. If you want Donald Trump again, all the things that Donald Trump has done, you know, from Charlottesville to the big lie to, you know, dinner with anti-Semites.

If you want that again, then yes, go ahead and have a big field. There are no party bosses. Nobody can tell you to get out. But for the good of the country, if you feel like you have to run for president, then do it. But know when to get out because it's going to get late early, whatever the Yogi Berra line is.