Morning Joe - Morning Joe 12/5/23

Episode Date: December 5, 2023

IDF begins ground invasion of southern Gaza

Congress has to decide whether to continue to support the fight for freedom in Ukraine as part of the 50-nation coalition that President Biden has built, or whether Congress will ignore the lessons we've learned from history and let Putin prevail. It is that simple. It is that stark a choice. And we hope that Congress, on a, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan laying out the high stakes of a vote on more aid for Ukraine. And, Willie, you look at the leads in the papers today, the major papers today, the Wall Street Journal talking about the White House warning that funding for Kiev to run out in weeks. Obviously, a desperate, desperate situation for those trying to stop a Russian invasion here. The leads on The Times also, their lead story, of course, about Israel pushing further south into Gaza and approaching another large city center and the growing concerns about a humanitarian crisis. And of course, over here, something that more there's more and more focus on. It's about how Donald Trump's second term could obviously create a much darker Trump. And of course, Willie, very few checks and balances.

We're going to be hitting all of those things today. But a lot of a lot of really important stories and a lot of ground to cover. Yeah. We're also going to be joined by Liz Cheney just about an hour from now, just a few minutes. She will tell us about her warning as well. She believes that if Donald Trump is elected to the White House again, he may never leave. She'll explain that and also some new nuggets coming out of her book about the days and the weeks around January 6th. So a busy morning ahead. Absolutely. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have the host of way too early White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post. David Ignatius is with us as well. Our top story this morning, the Israeli military appears to have begun its ground

offensive in southern Gaza. New satellite photos show Israeli tanks and armored personnel carriers in the area. The move sets the stage for what will likely be one of the biggest battles of the war in southern Gaza's largest city. Israeli officials believe the military leadership of Hamas has been seeking shelter there. Israeli defense forces have declined to comment specifically on these developments, but say they are operating all over the Gaza Strip. Airstrikes were launched in the south over the weekend. The plan to invade the area has been met with stark warnings from U.S. officials to protect civilian lives. Yesterday, Gaza's two main Internet service providers announced another near total blackout.

Officials say it was caused by a cut of the main fiber routes. Services started gradually returning this morning. David Ignatius, of course, we have pictures, New York Times. And, of course, an invasion into the south takes a humanitarian crisis that was already dire and obviously amplifies it. You think of all the people that streamed. Listen to the Israelis from the north to the south. The Israelis cut Gaza in half, began to work on northern Gaza, trying to root out the terrorist cells, trying to figure out where the hostages were. But now that the population has been pushed to the southern half of Gaza. Now the military exercises move forward there.

It looks like a major risk for the very thing that the Biden administration fears, and that is more civilian casualties at a high rate that we saw the first couple of weeks of these battles. Joe, the head of the International Committee for the Red Cross, highly respected, spoke yesterday of an intolerable level of human suffering in Gaza as this war moves forward. Israel is tightening its control of southern Gaza, just as it did in northern Gaza in the first weeks of the war. I think their goal is to try to trap Yahya Sinwar, the head of Gaza, as Hamas operations, and if possible, arrest or kill him. I think there are many Israelis who would treat that as victory in this war. But all the signs of attempts to control that territory, checkpoints being established on Saladin Road, where I was two weeks ago, just a choke point of people. And I had the feeling reading the stories, as you may have, that there was for Gazans nowhere to run. They're being told to evacuate one place to go to other places.

Those places are under bombardment or may soon be. It's just just an impossible situation. U.S. officials, I think, are near a breaking point, but not there yet. A break with Israel over this would be a fundamental change in policy. You had sharp warnings from Vice President Harris, following warnings from Secretary of Defense Austin and Secretary of State Blinken. But there's no break yet. The U.S. is still kind of treading water on this, letting the Israelis continue their attack. Well, I suspect if we see images in the next few weeks, like the images we've seen in the

past few weeks, there will there will obviously be increased pressure and I would suspect even possibly a public break demanding that civilian casualties be kept down. Willie, just again, for people that for uninitiated that haven't been following this closely or haven't been following politics in the Middle East closely. Of course, these Palestinian refugees really in their own country have been pushed from the north to the south. Now they're jammed in the south. Two million people jammed in the south. Now the Israelis tell them they need to go elsewhere because they have to root out Hamas. And Hamas, of course, as we all know, they hide behind civilians. They hide underneath hospitals. They hide in schools. They hide in mosques.

They hide in places where they hope the most civilians will be killed when Israel is trying to root them out. All that said, this humanitarian crisis, of course, has started because of Hamas, but also amplified because Egypt has shut off the border. So the Palestinians can't go into Egypt and be safe until this war ends. Yeah, it's been one of the questions we've been asking now for well over a month. What about Egypt in all of this? Why don't they want refugees to come into the country the way, say, Poland welcomed Ukrainian refugees when that war started? They have been a conduit for

humanitarian aid, of course, but in terms of refugees, not much to speak of. And you're right. The civilians who've been told after October 7th, almost two months ago to move south, are now in a place where they're being attacked again because Hamas puts themselves behind civilians in the south. And Israel is now saying the place we told you to go, leave there, too, because Hamas is there. We've got to get in there. So it's if you're a civilian in Gaza, it is a terrible, terrible predicament. But Benjamin Netanyahu has made no no mistake that he's going to continue to prosecute this war and go after Hamas, whatever that means. And this all now factors into how is the United States going to continue to fund all of this? U.S. aid for both Israel and Ukraine, by the way,

hanging in the balance as congressional Republicans want policy changes and border spending as part of a national security supplemental package. But sources tell NBC News bipartisan talks and border policy changes tied to the supplemental have broken down now. U.S. Office of Management and Budget is warning without congressional action, the U.S. will run out of resources to help Ukraine by the end of the year. And Jonathan Lemire of the White House sounding the alarm about this, saying, if we want to stop Vladimir Putin, if you want to continue to help Israel in its fight against Hamas, we've got to get this supplemental package through.

Over $100 billion now they're asking for. Yeah, the Office of Management and Budget notified congressional leaders Sunday night. We heard from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan at the podium yesterday saying the time is running out, that by the end of the year, the U.S. will have run out of money to send to Ukraine, and that will leave Ukraine in a dire position. Europe, to this point, is still supporting Ukraine, but there has been some waning there as well. The United States, of course, is the backbone of this alliance. President Biden has really built to support Ukraine. And if the U.S. is unable to continue to back them financially, that will really, really hinder Ukraine's ability to try to ward off Russia's ongoing invasion and, of course, would also change the perspective of

the U.S. around the world. But Congress, at least at this point, isn't moving very fast. Senator Schumer is trying to get things going in the Senate right now. But the House is where this is bogged down. And there's a sense that this that there's really not much in the way of progress has been made in the last week or so. The winter holiday break is coming. And then if this does spill into the new year, not only will the money have expired, but then Congress will be consumed with government spending fights and just trying to keep the lights on in Washington. So there's real alarm in the White House about what's next. Well, the lead story in this morning's New York Times is warning how a second term could unleash a darker Trump, highlighting the former president's violent and authoritarian

rhetoric on the 2024 campaign trail. The paper notes that as he runs for president again, facing four criminal prosecutions, Mr. Trump may seem more angry, desperate and dangerous to American style democracy than in his first term. But the through line that emerges is far more long running. He has glorified political violence and spoken admiringly of autocrats for decades. The Times points to an interview from more than three decades ago where Trump spoke admirably of how China crushed Democratic protesters in Tiananmen Square and also highlights his past praise for former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and Philippine strongman Rodrigo Duterte. The paper notes that in a hypothetical second Trump administration, the forces that somewhat

contained his autocratic tendencies in his first term, including some staffers, congressional Republicans, and a partisan balance on the Supreme Court, would all be weaker. As a result, Mr. Trump's and his advisers' more extreme policy plans and ideas for a second term would have a greater prospect of becoming a reality. Let's bring you right now, staff writer for The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum, her new piece. Part of The Atlantic's special issue outlining the dangers of a potential second term for Donald Trump is titled,

Trump Will Abandon NATO. Anne, thanks so much for being with us. The New York Times lead written by Charlie Savage, Jonathan Swan, and Maggie Haberman. It's much like a piece that I that The Washington Post has recently written. And also what's happening with The Atlantic this month. You, Jeffrey Goldberg, so many others writing about the dangers of his second Trump term. And again, lifted, really, this is all lifted straight from, I believe it was your book in 2017. It seems all of your warnings appear to be taking shape in the form of Donald Trump's plans for a second term.

I think people are suddenly realizing that Trump is very likely to be the Republican candidate. And I think they're also realizing just about now that he is running on an explicitly anti-constitutional platform. He's running as someone who would overthrow the Constitution, who would undermine it, who would undermine the American civil service, maybe the military. And I think that's why you're suddenly seeing so many people writing about it. In fact, you know, your previous item, we're already having a taste of what a Trump second term could look like in this battle, really irresponsible battle over funding for Ukraine. You know, here is an ally who we've been supporting bravely for the last 19 months. They are fighting on the ground. They are, you know, undermining the army

of one of our important geopolitical rivals, Russia. And we're, you know, arguing in Washington about whether or not to keep helping them. I mean, that's outrageous, but it's a taste of what could happen if Trump were to win, in which case he's very likely to say, I don't care about Europe. I don't care about NATO. I'm leaving. So so and as you studied in your book, you studied what Orban did on the path to power, as you studied what the Law and Justice Party did on the path to power. I don't remember it even being as explicit, their threats against democracy in Hungary and Poland, even being as explicit as having a presidential candidate promising to terminate the Constitution, execute generals that are insufficiently loyal and ban television news

networks that he doesn't like. Again, in the campaign phase, this seems far more explicit, far more extreme than even what we saw in Orban's rise and the law and justices rise in Poland. No, you're absolutely right. I mean, it's true that in both of those cases, it was the second term. It was the second time of being in power when those political parties and leaders, you know, began to push back against the media, you know, change the Constitution, change the courts. And so in that sense, this is a parallel. But you're right that this kind of language about, you know, attacking my enemies and describing them as vermin, you know, which is which is the kind of language that Nazis use to describe their enemies and describe Jews.

You know, this isn't something you heard in Central Europe. It sounds much more like what you'd hear in Russia or in one of the really severe autocracies around the world. It's not even it's not even the language of declining democracy elsewhere. So, Anne, let's be specific on your piece about Donald Trump getting out of NATO. First of all, how that would work. What does it look like for the United States to get out of NATO and the implications of that, given what we're living through right now in Ukraine, given President Biden's efforts to strengthen NATO that has added members on the cusp of adding another here, still getting 800 miles of new border up along Russia with its latest member.

What would it mean for the United States to withdraw from NATO? What would it mean to the world? So, first of all, it's important to understand what NATO? What would it mean to the world? So, first of all, it's important to understand what NATO is. You know, NATO is an alliance based on a pretty open-ended treaty. You know, Article 5, this famous Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, just says an attack on one member will be treated as an attack on all. It doesn't say what you have to do. There's no obligation to do anything. But it has created a psychological effect. The idea is that there is something like collective defense, that the United States, plus its European allies, plus Canada, would come to one another's aid if attacked. And it did happen once after 9-11. There was a declaration of Article 5 and NATO members came to USAID in Afghanistan. But also what that means is that if Trump were to be

president and if he were simply to say, I don't believe in collective defense anymore, I don't care about Europe, which he has said, by the way, you know, he said, I don't give a shit about NATO to John Bolton. He tried to leave the NATO lines a couple of times when he was president before. If he were to say that and if he were to be backed up by his, you know, by his cabinet members, that's it, because the promise of collective defense is gone. And there would, of course, be a reaction. You know, the Senate would fight back and, you know, former military chiefs and there might be political, you know, resistance to it. But really, all he has to do is say it. And then when and if people just don't believe he would go to war for them anymore, then that then why wouldn't Russia say, OK, if that's how these if

that's how it is, then, you know, why should we defend Poland? If you know, I'm sorry, U.S. isn't going to defend Poland if we attack, you know, the airports that are being used to bring in Ukrainian aid. And so it would simply create the impression that collective defense is gone. And by the way, that would have an impact in Taiwan and South Korea as well. Well, and this is, again, this is, as Anne said, David Ignatius, it's not the language of democracy in decline. This is language announcing the death of democracy

when you talk about terminating the Constitution, executing generals that are insufficiently loyal, banning news networks who you disagree with, and promising to jail political opponents. That's domestically. And then internationally, Donald Trump giving a green light. And he said this out loud in the first term, giving the green light to Vladimir Putin, to Xi, to Kim Jong-un. These are the three leaders he respects the most, praises the most. So this is a complete reshaping of Western-style democracy, of Jefferson democracy, of Madisonian democracy, however you want to do it. And again, he's telling us right now, if he is elected, that will come to an end.

So, Joe, reading the articles that you described, one significant article was Robert Kagan's in The Washington Post over the weekend that basically said we are on the road to dictatorship. What I found myself asking, what I'd ask my colleague and is what Americans and in particular U.S. public officials should do about it. And these warnings increasingly are specific and I think have to be taken seriously. That was all point of Kagan's article. This is coming at us. We either act or we will live with the consequences. So you've thought a lot about this.

You're one of the best writers on these issues of preserving democracy. What would be a list of things you think people should do now to prevent this disaster from happening? So there's a range of things depending on who you are. You know, if you're an ordinary person, you can you can join a civic organization. You can work on behalf of either on behalf of a Republican candidate who would defeat Trump or on behalf of the Democratic Party. You can involve yourself in local politics. You can—you know, you can stop treating democracy as if it was sort of something you don't have to think about except once every four years. You can be involved in it every day. But I think there are

also some more specific things. I mean, I think that the Republican officials who understand Trump, who worked with Trump, his cabinet officers, you know, his national security advisors who know exactly how dangerous he is, should, you know, begin to campaign now. They should go around the country. They should speak as a group. They should say, here's what the stakes are. You know, here's what this man does. You know, clearly, the Republican—you know, the Republican opposition should unite around one candidate, you know, probably at this point Nikki Haley. If Nikki

Haley were to lose, she should also think about running as a third-party candidate to split the vote. I mean, people need to begin to think seriously, how do we stop this? How do we prevent him from winning? How do we communicate the danger to the American people? And of course, Jonathan O'Meara, the problem right now for those who want to push back against Donald Trump is in the Republican primary is split field. You have Nikki Haley, who is on the rise, but you also have Chris Christie facing increasing pressure to get out of the race to try to stop Donald Trump. And of course, Ron DeSantis, whose campaign has been seen lagging badly, also not facing as much pressure. But a one on one between Nikki Haley and Donald Trump is

actually something that Donald Trump fears the most. And I will say a Nikki Haley and Donald Trump is actually something that Donald Trump fears the most. And I will say a Nikki Haley nomination is something Democrats fear the most. They do not want to run against Nikki Haley. So so how how does the White House sort through all of this? Well, the timing of this conversation is such where the next Republican debate is tomorrow night and just four Republicans left on that stage. And these debates have seemed fairly irrelevant because of how far ahead Trump is in the polls. But I think we should be watching Christie and Ramaswamy. They're in a sort of a second tier. And it's really about DeSantis and Haley tomorrow night. Can one really wound the other where one, therefore, and right now, Haley would be the person who has the momentum,

would surge forward and become the clear Trump alternative. And maybe the field would begin to winnow. I mean, DeSantis, he's not going to get out before Iowa and New Hampshire. But as it's been noted, the primary counter among Republicans, there's about a month between New Hampshire and South Carolina. And that might be the time where we see the field shrink to just Trump and one other opponent. Maybe that is Haley. And maybe that crystallizes this chance. That might be the Republican Party's best chance to move away from Trump. But right now, you know, these are all sort of wish casting. He is a massive, massive lead. And it seems far more likely to Anne's point just now that even if Haley were to be defeated and Trump were to be the nominee, she wouldn't challenge him as a third party candidate. Right. She would

get in line behind him and maybe even try to become his vice president. Exactly. That's the problem there is the only one who's really criticizing him full on is Chris Christie. The Atlantic's Anne Applebaum. Thank you very much. Her new piece, part of the magazine's special issue on a potential Trump second term is online now and still ahead on Morning Joe. We'll take a look at new polling from younger voters on next year's presidential election. This is obviously a key group that right now seems more split than they have been in the past. If Donald Trump is to be defeated, those younger voters are going to need to move towards Joe Biden and the Democratic Party over the next year. John De La Volpe from Harvard has the latest numbers. We'll go through them. Also ahead, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer claims to have new bombshell evidence against Hunter Biden. We'll explain why

it seems to be another dud. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Live shot of the White House at 27 past the hour. Welcome back. Some U.S. officials believe the Biden administration is downplaying this weekend's attack against commercial vessels in the Red Sea. On Sunday, Houthi rebels in Yemen launched missiles and drones against three separate ships. A U.S. Navy warship then fired back, taking down three unmanned aerial systems. The Defense Department says it, quote, cannot assess whether the U.S. was the target of the attack. But officials with knowledge of the incident tell Politico U.S. naval forces are clearly under threat in the Red Sea. They argue the White House is downplaying the seriousness in an attempt to avoid escalating tensions in the Middle East amid the Israel-Hamas war. David, what can you tell us? So, Joe, I think two things are clear here. One is that the Houthis

are not deterred from attacking shipping in the Red Sea from these reports, nor are they deterred from firing missiles at Israel itself. Some of the most heavy ballistic missile attacks have been coming from Houthis in Yemen. And secondly, it's obvious that the United States does not want to get into a wider war now with Iran to stop this. I've been wondering whether there'll be some kind of middle step, a quarantine on delivery of weapons to the Houthis that would be enforced by the U.S. Navy, perhaps also an embargo on delivery by air. But unless something is done, these attacks are getting more and more dangerous by the day. All right, let's turn back to the war in Israel. Richard Engel is standing by for us in Jerusalem. He is NBC News chief foreign correspondent. Richard, good to see you today. So we're talking a few minutes ago about Israel's continued push into southern Gaza,

what that means for civilians there, how Hamas is responding, putting civilians between it and the Israeli military. What are you hearing and what are you seeing on the ground there? So we still have two teams in southern Gaza and one team is in Han Yunis, another further south in Rafah. And that is the main focus of the Israeli operation right now around the city of Han Yunis. So going back a little bit, this war began two months ago, and it started in the northern part of the Gaza Strip with strikes in and around Gaza City, some towns around Gaza City. And at the time, Israel ordered Palestinians to move south. And many of those Palestinians moved to Han Yunis, even though there were occasional attacks,

sometimes very bloody attacks in Han Yunis. Many people were displaced and relocated in that city. Now Han Yunis is under fire. Israeli tanks have not entered the city center, according to our teams and according to witnesses, but they are near the city center and people are starting to leave any way they can. They are leaving in cars, not a lot of fuel in Gaza. So they are leaving on bicycles. They're leaving on horse and donkey carts and they are heading toward the city of Rafah. And Rafah is right on

the Egyptian border. It is the end of the line. There is no place further south to go. And the humanitarian conditions in Rafah are dire. There's trash on the streets. There are hundreds of thousands of people crowded into what was effectively a small town. Rafa, I've been to Rafa, it normally has around 300,000 people. It has many times more that population right now, maybe 600,000 or 700,000. And they are expecting the arrival of another 600,000 or 700,000 people for Han Yunis. So there is a possibility that in a small town that had 300,000 people, you could have a half a million people by the end of this week or next week. And Rafa simply can't sustain it. They don't have

enough food. They don't have enough water. They don't have enough places to sleep. Already, people are sleeping out in the open, are sleeping wherever they can, because there just aren't beds, there aren't homes, there aren't shelters. And there's a concern about the spread of communicable diseases. And what many people in Rafah will tell you is that what they fear is that Israel's goal is to push them out of the country, push them out of the Gaza Strip entirely and to drive them into Egypt, which is something that Egypt also fears, which is why Egypt is keeping its border closed. So a very serious humanitarian situation in southern Gaza escalating right now. What Israel says it is doing, it says it is completing its mission.

It is going where Hamas is, and that Hamas moved south with displaced people, and that Hamas also moved to places where it could find safety and shelter and that Israel believes it has no choice but to go after Hamas leaders, even if they are still surrounded by by people. Richard, you started to answer my next question, which is why Egypt hasn't opened up to refugees to allow more people to come in in the ways we saw European nations do with Ukraine over the last couple of years, namely Poland or Lebanon, or why other Arab nations have not welcomed these refugees who clearly are living in dire conditions? Well, the Egyptian, this is a conflict that goes back decades and longer than that,

depending on how you how you do the do the math and how you think about it it's a religious terms it goes back a few thousand years but this particular conflict over Gaza we're talking about decades and the Palestinians believe and Egyptians believe that after this this terrible attack after this Hamas atrocity that Israel's secret undeclared mission is to empty out the Gaza Strip, to destroy as much of it as they can in the process. Israel today, the Israeli military said it had located 800 tunnel shafts so far by Hamas and destroyed 500 of them and to drive

people into Egypt, in which case Gaza would be no more. The people of Gaza would become permanently displaced living in the Sinai Peninsula. And that is something that Egypt does not want. It is something that the people of Gaza don't want. So instead, we have this captive population, which is being moved around, shuffled from one place to the next, that is under attack. And there's desperation growing in Gaza. There's real fear. There's anger.

I think the people I've spoken to in Gaza, and some of them I've known for years, I've never seen them this disillusioned, this disheartened, and this depressed. But they do not say that the solution is a long term resettlement of Gaza into Egypt. NBC's Richard Engel. Great job explaining all that for us this morning, as always, Richard. Thank you. Washington Post, David Ignatius. Thank you as well. We'll see you again very soon. Coming up next, former Congresswoman Liz Cheney live in our studio to discuss her new book, Oath and Honor. Talk about the threat she sees from a potential second Trump term, the state of the Republican Party and her own future in politics.

You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. It's 20 minutes before the top of the hour look at that beautiful shot of the sun coming up over new york city welcome back a new poll released moments ago is revealing new insights into younger voters ahead of next year's election the harvard youth poll shares several key findings including fewer young americans plan to vote in 2024, with most of the decline coming from young Republicans and independents. President Biden's advantage with younger voters narrows when potential independent candidates are introduced, like RFK Jr., Joe Manchin and Cornel West. And with support for abortion access increasing over the last

decade, Americans who support a woman's right to choose are more likely to vote on abortion ballot measures. Joining us now, director of polling at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University, John De La Volpe. He's an MSNBC contributor and the author of the book entitled Fight How Gen Z is Channeling Their Fear and Passion to Save America, which is out now in paperback. It's great to have you to talk about this, which was just out these polls you did. Overall, what are you finding about sort of the state of mind of the younger electorate? Yeah, thanks again, Mika and Joe, for having me again. You know, this is an opportunity we had

to speak to a couple thousand young Americans. There's been a lot of conversation the last month or so based looking at crosstabs of a couple hundred young Americans. And we're seeing three big things. The first of which is President Biden is in solid shape, I'd say, in a two-way matchup against President Trump today, one.

The second thing is, as you can see, it gets much more complicated with multiple candidates, independent candidates in the field, specifically Bobby Kennedy, too. And the third thing is, as you can see, as you just noted, abortion continues to be an incredibly important issue in the post-Dobbs environment, and we see that folks who align with the pro-choice movement

are far more likely to engage, not just politically, but actually deriving where they choose to live when they grow up, when they when they when they are ready to to move and settle down in a career. So, John, let's look at some of these specifics here on our first graphic. And this is the fewer 18 to 29 year olds plan to vote this time around. That's the fear of the Biden campaign, which is not that they're going to leap to Donald Trump, but that they just don't show up at all. So as you look inside here, it is true that more Republicans and independents say they won't vote. So is the Biden White House. Should they be feeling good this morning that at least Democrats, young Democrats say they're going to go out and vote? Well, that's certainly good news, Willie. But remember, there are more independents today than there were four years ago.

So people are disassociating with the Democratic Party, specifically young people of color, young African-Americans and young Hispanics. Double digit decreases in the number of young people who align with the Democratic Party today relative to four years ago. We spent a lot of time on this and others really talking about voter suppression for good reason. This is about voter depression. And I think it's a it's a calculated campaign from the far right to depress young people's turnout in politics. Right. They're depressed about views of government. They're depressed about the views of both parties. And we can see the effect, I think, in the rise of cynicism in the and the at this point a year out, they're less likely to participate in the campaign. And John, I think the Biden campaign hopes that they say,

look, we're 11 months out, that these young voters will be energized next summer, say, when they start to think about what's at stake if Donald Trump becomes president again, if abortion rights continue to be rolled back. Right. They feel like that'll crystallize the choice once it's actually a choice that is A or B. And, you know, your polling here suggests that young people think that Donald Trump would do better handling the Israel Hamas war than perhaps Joe Biden by 29 to 25 percent. Let's also remember, of course, some of this might be fueled by young voters, Muslim voters. Donald Trump over the weekend just said he's going to bring back his Muslim ban. So once voters start paying attention, these numbers could change.

Yeah, John. And I think that particular number is less about Donald Trump's position and more about the plurality of young people who don't trust either one at this point to handle Israel Hamas. I don't think it's necessarily a big endorsement for Trump, as we said, that this is really about Biden versus the other. And we have a solid undecided and specific on issue over issue over issue. They want to see more. They want to see that democracy works and they want to see that their vote mattered in 2020 with real evidence. So we talked about the issue of abortion, one of your key findings here. Pro-choice Americans more likely to vote on abortion ballot

measures. If there's something on the ballot in their state, they'll go out and then vote, ideally, vote for candidates as well. Yeah, we had a series of, we updated a series of questions on abortion generally. All this is available on our website, of course. We see an eight-point increase over the last four or five years in terms of overall support of abortion access generally. And when we ask people if there were a referendum or a ballot measure in your state, how likely would you be to participate? And you can see that the pro-choice group is far more likely than other people to say they'll turn out on a local issue. Yeah. So nearly two-thirds of young Americans say legal access to reproductive health care,

including abortion, is important when choosing where they live. So obviously the issue of abortion is going to be important here. Just to go back quickly, something we were talking about, about third-party candidates. When you look at the way the vote gets split, when you throw in the third party, RFK Jr., Cornel West, maybe Joe Manchin as well, how significant is that? And what are young voters saying about being fed up, frankly, with the two parties that they've been offered? Listen, as we said, we've got this increasing level of folks who self-identify as independent. They are by far the least likely to vote. That's why we're seeing a decrease in the number of

African-Americans and Spanx less likely to vote one, even even college students as well. And and when we when we see a two-way race, it looks like 2020. It looks fairly normal in terms of what you expect from younger people. But when you enter Cornel West, potential in Manchin, and Kennedy, Biden's lead goes from 11 points to four points among everybody. It goes from 15 to eight among registered voters. And we know what happened in Wisconsin in 2016 as well. And the news of this poll, I think, is regardless of the independent third party candidate, they take more from Biden side among young voters than the Trump side, specifically Bobby Kennedy. And you were telling

that some of these young voters you talked to were bringing up unsolicited the name of RFK Jr. What do they think about him? What do they say about him? Why do they like him if they do? Well, they think that he's different than the other two parties at this point. Right. That's what they think. And he is clearly a conspiracy theorist, but he's also, I think, a political tactician who understands the vulnerabilities in the electorate, the vulnerabilities when the Democratic Party is aiming his message directly at them. If you don't have a place in either party, he's saying, look at me. And at this point, it's a year out. People are looking at him. It's dangerous, I think, for our democracy.

Is there a sense as to why young Democrats would be interested in Robert Kennedy Jr., besides the last name? I mean, he's a vaccine conspiracy theorist. He holds some really out there views on a number of positions. Certainly those in the Biden camp that I talked to, yes, they're worried about Cornel West. They're worried about Jill Stein. They're worried about Joe Manchin. But they also think most of those are going to drop out because they don't want to be seen as helping elect Trump. Kennedy, they have less of a feel over. Some of them might think he might hurt Trump more. But your findings disagree? Within this cohort, absolutely. And Jonathan,

I also looked at a variety of data points of the last several years. And every youth, every electorate, we have a different composition of the youth vote. The 18 to 24 year old young men, they are far more likely to identify as conservative or Republican than the young men just a cycle ago. This is the post-COVID Joe Rogan barstool sports cohort here. And that's a different kind of voter than we saw just four years ago. Director of polling at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University, John De La Volpe. So interesting. This is going to be pivotal in this election. John, thanks so much. We appreciate it. Thank you.

Coming up, former Congresswoman Liz Cheney is standing by with a warning about our democracy and what is at stake if Donald Trump returns to the White House. She will join our set to discuss her new book, Oath and Honor. When Morning Joe comes right back. Welcome back. Fifty one past the hour as House Republicans appear closer to authorizing an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. Oversight Committee Chair James Comer has released what he calls a new piece of evidence claiming the president's son, Hunter Biden, was funneling money to his father. The House Oversight Committee is releasing subpoenaed bank records that show Hunter Biden's business entity,

a Wasco PC, made direct monthly payments to Joe Biden. Yeah. Oh, my God. Here's the problem with that. What? Public sourcing. Well. What?

It showed there were car loan repayments. It was. Was it a wrap? What kind of car was it? Car loan repayments. A Ford Raptor. Was it a Ford Raptor? Yeah, a Raptor. Or it could have been a hot rod Lincoln. A Ford Raptor. Was it a Ford Raptor? Yeah, a Raptor. Or it could have been a Hot Rod

Lincoln. I don't know. If you ride around that Hot Rod Lincoln in Tennessee, you go through the Smoky Mountains, go through the patch, you're going to know. Like more in the map. More in the... More smoking guns. The transactions for Hunter

paying back money he borrowed for a Ford Raptor truck. That's a crime right there. I question the truck choice. I do. That's a crime right there. You always go for the 150. F-150.

Ford F-150. Just go big. Willie, Willie, by the way. 1993, two tanks. Those payments came two years after Joe Biden was out of office as a vice president. Hunter Biden's attorney released this statement, quote, The truth is Hunter's father helped him when he was struggling financially due to his addiction and couldn't secure credit to finance truck.

When Hunter was able to, he paid his father back and he took over the payments himself. But we got another one. What's that? Yeah. RNC chair Ronna McDaniel is accusing President Biden and the White House of suppressing news coverage about his son, Hunter Biden's life. Well, this sounds serious. Let's this is a Biden White House that was meeting with social media companies dictating what they put on their platforms before the 2020 election. That to me is suppression. This is a White House that killed a Hunter Biden story that we now know is true that prevented voters from knowing that before the 2020 election. That to me is suppression. Willie, Willie, so powerful that he could suppress this information. His White House could suppress this information even when he was not in the White House, which means he has like some X-Men slash Avengers.

I think it's more X-Men slash Avengers. I think it's more X-Men. It's like these X-Men powers where he can warp time or something. Or maybe it is. Maybe it more is like more of an Avengers multiverse thing where he's not really present, but he is. But I think Rona knows that. So I'm just wondering why Rona said the Biden White House did it when Biden wasn't in the White House and nobody corrected her. Yeah. Joe Biden was not president of the United States in 2020 ahead of the presidential election. He was trying to become president. So there was no Biden White House to suppress the free press. Donald Trump, of course, was still president at that point.

I mean, what strikes you, Joe, is how bad they are at this. If you're going to try to sell the claim that there is a Biden crime family, that there's this international syndicate that somehow Joe Biden is directing and enriching himself. You think over all these months and months and now years, they would have at least produced something credible that would have showed that Joe Biden was connected to something. What they have yesterday, what James Comer presented was three thirteen hundred dollar car payments. Now, let's say that were a scandal. It turns out, as Mika just laid out, it wasn't a scandal. Let's say it were. That's what you've got. Wade against Donald Trump trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and planning to do worse if he's elected again. They keep they Jonathan Lemire. They keep shooting themselves in the foot.

They can't stand up for falling down like here. She's tried out a Dr. Strange theory that somehow he rearranged time and Biden was president before Biden was president. The Biden way began. The question is, how do you say that on TV and say, oh, this shows how corrupt he is and the White House and nobody corrects him? 2020 wasn't president. No, unless Joe Biden also has the ability to travel time, maybe a past version of Joe Biden meets a present version of Joe Biden. This seems pretty implausible, but it's still

being picked up and run with the conservative media. It is on the front page of the New York Post today. Fox News is certainly doing it as well. The Murdoch empire pushing these storylines and they're so shameless because there is no there there, but they're going to keep doing it. And we heard from the new house speaker earlier this week that the impeachment inquiry does seem to be proceeding on track. And that's something the Congress likely will take on in the next couple of weeks. They do it unchecked. Coming up, former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney will be our guest right here on Morning Joe. She joins us with her new highly anticipated book, Oath and Honor.

That is straight ahead on Morning Joe. Country, we don't swear an oath to an individual or a political party. We take our oath to defend the United States Constitution. And that oath must mean something. Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible. There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain. As Americans, we all have a duty to ensure that what happened on January 6th never happens again, to set aside partisan battles, to stand together, to perpetuate and preserve our great republic. That was former Congresswoman and Vice Chair of the House Select Committee

investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol, Liz Cheney, with a warning to her own party. Since those hearings, we've seen the Republican Party elect a House Speaker who Cheney says cannot be counted on to uphold their oath to the Constitution. And one who actually took the lead in the big lie. And back another Trump term, even as the former president openly touts an extreme and authoritarian agenda while facing 91 criminal counts. And Liz Cheney joins us now. She is a professor of practice at the University of Virginia Center for Politics and author of the new book out today entitled Oath and Honor, a memoir and a warning. And thank you very much for coming on the show this morning

to talk about your book. We all watched and were impressed and aghast at your work during the January 6th committee hearings. You know, just just to name a few things, we've been talking this week about the latest issue of The Atlantic, which is a deep dive into a look at the dangers of a second Trump presidency. And we look at Trump's own words. Even now, we could go on for four hours and still have not enough time to talk about the things he says he will do, the things he has said he would do and has done.

So my first question to you, with so much insight into this, into the Republican Party and what is happening to it, why do you think he is still very much the front runner for the Republican nomination? And how much do the reasons you have for that concern you about the future? Well, first of all, thank you for having me on. And thanks to you guys and to everybody here for the coverage that you've been giving of this issue now for so many years. It really is important and very much appreciated. And you've put your finger on what I think is, you know, one of and maybe the most important

question politically, certainly, that we face at this moment. And I think there are a combination of things going on. I think, first of all, there are millions of people around the country who feel like they are not heard by the government, who have felt like they don't have a voice. And Donald Trump has managed to convince them dishonestly that he could be their voice. And so I think that reflects a certain percentage of the Republican Party. It's not a huge percentage. Certainly the people in Congress who actually believe what he's saying is very, very small. But but he's enabled and and appeased and collaborated with by people

who know better in in leadership in the Republican Party today. And that's partly what makes him so so dangerous. Right. As people have been willing to look the other way and go along, even when they know, know that's wrong. You know, it once was they would look the other way because, you know, they won't they don't want to lose the base. They don't want to lose their their seats in Congress. But you write that, you know, even during the Trump impeachment time that some members, maybe even many, were scared for their own safety if they would vote toward impeachment. Can you tell us more about that? What you heard? Yeah, I mean, it was it was widespread in many instances. People would say it directly, a knowledge that if they did the right thing,

if they publicly opposed Trump, if they voted for his impeachment, for example, that they would be putting themselves and potentially their family at risk. You know, I talk in the book about the vote the first time that the Republicans attempted to oust me from my conference chair position, where, you know, we prevailed significantly. It was a secret ballot. And I suspect that had impeachment been a secret ballot, for example, the numbers would have been been, you know, much more many more Republicans would have voted in favor of impeachment. Now, that's, you know, the fact that we're living in a situation where you have to think about a secret ballot because people want to

protect themselves, because people feel they're threatened by violence. That's it's not a place that we've been before in this country. Congresswoman, what's very clear reading this book is that you knew this effort was going to cost you your job, that you knew a state in Wyoming where Donald Trump won by 43 points, it was not going to be popular, excuse me, to stand up to him. So as you undertook this fight, did you give any consideration to your political career, to your political future? You have a lot of road ahead of you still, senator, maybe higher office as well. How did you balance those things? Because clearly you and Adam Kinzinger and a small handful of others made that choice when most of the others said, no, this job and this power is more important to me.

You know, in a way, it's a it's a difficult question to answer because I never thought about it that way. And I was surprised that people did think about it that way. And that's the only reason I asked, because so many other people did think about it that way. And to me, there was no question about what the Constitution required. And so, you know, beginning actually while we were being evacuated from the floor of the House, while we were being rushed down the steps, you know, into the tunnels underneath the Capitol, I knew then that that he had to be impeached and removed. He was a clear and present danger. It was,

you know, obvious that he was not sending help. He was not telling the mob to stop. And, you know, each moment that went by, it was just obvious, self-evident that that was in another moment of an impeachable offense. So I think that that the the founders were very clear about trying to ensure that people who are elected in elective office swear an oath to the Constitution and put something above, you know, what they called factionalism, allegiance to a single individual. And I think what we've seen over the last couple of years is how important that really is, how much that really matters and what we have to demand of our elected officials. And you publish here in the book the remarks you never got to make on January 6th where you made the case you're making right here, which is this is not a close call. We in Congress do not have the power to overturn the will of the voters. But so many of your colleagues did, in fact, do that. And we mentioned Mike Johnson, the current speaker of the House.

He's a constitutional lawyer by trade and by practice and by education. And yet he led that charge. And you say in the book he sent out a caucus wide email that said Donald Trump has directed me to get a list effectively to take names who is signing on to our brief and who is not. And he's going to be very disappointed in those who didn't. Can you say more about that and how you responded to it? Yeah. When that email went out, I heard from a number of members as soon as they received the email who were very concerned, who said, wait a minute, is this is this a threat that, you know, Donald Trump is going to be looking at this list? And of course, Mike said, no, no, no, he didn't mean it that way. But but he what he was doing very much with that amicus brief was, first of all,

conveying to members that, you know, this amicus brief really doesn't suggest that we understand or that we believe or that we're asserting that there's been fraud. But of course, it was doing precisely that. And he was convincing members to sign on to something that, you know, through my discussions with him, through I enlisted others. I went to Kevin McCarthy's senior lead attorney, and she also was similarly concerned and had been talking to Mike and saying, this is without basis in the Constitution. So it was troubling to see. And frankly, it was really disturbing. He was a friend of mine and I was surprised and sorry to see the path he was willing to go down.

There's so many vivid scenes in these that we were discussing as you sat down this moment. And I'll let you tell the story when there was a no confidence vote for you, a caucus meeting. Congressman Kelly of Pennsylvania described his feeling toward you. Well, this was in February, the first time that I was that they attempted to oust me. And we had a four hour conference meeting that I presided over where people basically went to microphones and stood up. And there were people who were supporting me, people who were very angry with me over the impeachment vote, over the statement that I issued to impeach. And there were a number of the men who stood up and expressed frustration and anger with my attitude, frustration and anger with my tone, said that I was just too defiant. That was my problem. But the emotion was running

very high. And I think what was one of the most surprising moments of the meeting was the one you mentioned where Congressman Kelly suggested that, you know, watching me vote to impeach was like, you know, playing in the biggest game of your life and looking up and seeing your girlfriend sitting in the stands of the opposing team. It was a moment where, you know, you're sort of standing up there presiding. What do you say? Right. Yeah. No, I mean, it was. Some of your colleagues did shout as well. Right. Right. Right. Who is it? Who is this guy? I'm sorry. Who is Mike? Mike Kelly. And what was Mike's position in in the caucus? He was a member of the conference. He was, you know.

Yeah. I mean, what was your position in the conference? Well, I was the chair of the conference. Yeah. OK, so your tone. OK, so could you ask me, can you answer this question? Your tone, your demeanor. Why would the chair be sitting up in the stands while one of 435 would be on the field? I don't I don't what in the world?

I don't quite understand that that analogy. No, it can. Well, I can't really help you, Joe. I mean, it left me speechless. You know, yeah, no, it was it was stunning. Yeah, she's she's the quarterback in that analogy to answer your question. Yeah. Yeah. No, no question. Who the star on the field was. The book is Congress. The book is, Congressman, the book is filled with vivid

illustrations of how much power Trump wielded over your Republican colleagues, including how Kevin McCarthy, then Speaker, would sometimes let him listen in secretly to your weekly meetings. And that was, as you write, lead some of your colleagues to put lavish praise upon him because they knew the president was listening and something unimaginable that this current Congress would let President Biden do. But that hold still remains. So many of you there, as Willie listed, a few only you and a few of your colleagues stood up to him. Most of you have left others like Senator Mitt Romney, another one who has stood up to Donald Trump. He has announced his retirement. When you look at those who are still behind in Washington, who do you see that's going to stand up to him? Well, I think that's exactly the danger that we face. If you think about the future,

you know, there have been editorials written saying, well, you know, this was in The Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago. You know, if Donald Trump is elected again, we really don't have to worry because the the institutions of our government will prevent, you know, the worst that he will attempt to do that. Nothing could be further from the truth, because those Republicans, you know, a House with Republicans like Mike Johnson, a Senate with people like Josh Hawley and Mike Lee, they won't stand up to him. The other thing that's really important in this regard is he will not abide by the rulings of the courts. And I think people really need to pause and think about what that means. A president who won't enforce court rulings with which he disagrees.

As soon as that happens, then people need to recognize immediately, you know, we are unraveling the fundamental structures and systems that make us a nation of laws. And so there won't be any guardrails to stop him. So, Liz, what do you say to people who accuse you, me, a lot of us, of just catastrophizing, being hysterical, when we bring up the fact that he's talking about terminating the Constitution, assassinating generals that disagree with him, taking TV networks off that he disagrees with, jailing immediately those that he opposes, former lawyers that have been sufficient, insufficiently loyal. What do you how do you explain to your friends, your former allies and other skeptics that this is a decision between democracy and authoritarianism in 2024?

Well, I think that you that's exactly what we have to do. And I think part of it is remembering that there are certain people that we aren't going to convince. There are people that are going to be with Trump no matter what. But but there are more people, Republicans, Democrats, independents, who we have to make sure they understand he's not a choice. He's not an option. He's not fit for this office. And and I think that those are the people who are listening. Those are people we have to mobilize and motivate to stand against the danger that he presents. And I think that that the facts matter. You know, there are a lot of people today who I think, you know, say, well, the truth doesn't matter anymore. For some segment of the population, that's true. It doesn't. But far more people are willing to listen. And and I think that because this isn't just us imagining what he would do, it's it's us saying, take him seriously.

He's telling us what he will do every single day. He does that. And just reminding people they can't think of him as an option when they go in to vote in 2024. Yeah. Yeah. I want to ask you the next question I'm going to ask you for advice, counseling advice. I'm wondering how you have dealt with and how you work through it in the book. The fact that you, like me, had 95% ratings, ACU ratings, that was my lifetime rating.

I think yours was around 95 as well. And for those that are uninitiated, that means you're like one of the most conservative members of Congress, like I was when I was there. And the very people who we were always trying to pull to make the tough conservative votes, but were cowards and wouldn't do the conservative thing. Those are now the people who are running around chanting Rhino, Rhino while they hug a guy who's never been conservative his whole life, Donald Trump. And I'm just curious, how do you deal with the fact that so many people that supported you back in your district, back in your state, so many people that you knew in church, so many people that you knew and grew up with who were the foundation of, you know, your childhood

and growing into adulthood. Those are the very people who have forgotten everything they taught you. Those are the very people who've forgotten everything they ever said about what mattered, about what you want to teach your kids to do, what limited government should look like. How do you work through that still? You know, I think it's certainly painful in many cases to think about people that you thought you knew, people you thought, you know, you'd taken sort of a judgment of their character and decided certainly that the people, these were people that you thought were honorable and to see that they aren't is very difficult. I do think, though, part of it is understanding and recognizing that there are millions of really good people who've been betrayed by Donald Trump and recognizing the power that he's had to to prey on their patriotism. But then also understanding that those are not the people that are the ones who are always going to be with him

aren't the ones that we have to convince. We need to be talking to people across the spectrum about about the challenges and the threat he poses. All right. When we come back, we're going to ask Liz Cheney about a call she was on with Trump lawyers, campaign staffers and surrogates two days before the January 6th attack on the Capitol, why she was on that call and what she heard on it. Much more with former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney and her new book, Oath and Honor, when Morning Joe comes right back.