Morning Joe - Morning Joe 8/11/23

Episode Date: August 11, 2023

Federal prosecutors suggest January 2, 2024, trial date for Donald Trump's charges of participating in a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results.

Crooked Joe now wants the thug prosecutor, this deranged guy, to file a court order taking away my First Amendment rights so that I can't speak. So listen to this. We don't want you to speak about the case. When we say I can't talk, I will talk about it. I will. They're not taking away my First Amendment rights. Welcome to Morning Joe and Big Donnie's right.

They're not going to take away their First Amendment, right? Anybody's First Amendment, right? He just can't threaten people. I mean, we'll kind of get into all of that in a second. But it's great to have you here on Morning Joe. That was Trump, again, promising crowd in New Hampshire. He's going to keep talking about the federal charges that he's facing in the 2020 election case, including, I guess, threatening federal prosecutors. Today, the judge in that case could decide exactly how much he can talk about it.

It comes as federal prosecutors are now pushing for a trial right after New Year's Day. Cue up, you too. We're going to have much more on Trump's legal issues ahead. Good morning. Welcome. Morning, Joe. It is. I mean, come on, man.

It's August. It's August. This is moving. This year's moving too fast. Mid-August. Mid-August. You know, you get old like me and it just it flies. Right.

It's August 11th. With us, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan O'Meara, also president of the National Action Network and host of MSNBC's Politics Nation. He's wearing tan today. Looks good. The Reverend Al Sharpe. I mean, come on, man. President Obama wore tan and look what happened.

It was a big news story with me. It's just another day. Can you believe that. It was a big news story with me. It's just another day. Can you believe that? That was a big news story. The president of the United States wearing tan in the White House. We have the same people that were upset by like that are now like, hey, it's really cool. We're after it. We support a guy that's actually trying to overthrow the federal government. Yeah, it's more of a news story to them to wear a tan suit than it is to try and put fake electors in to decide who's going to be president.

That doesn't matter. Have a riot that you watch there on television in the White House and do nothing for hours to stop it. Yeah, that's all right. But just don't wear. Don't wear tan. I grew up in like northwest Florida where everything was poplin. You wore tan. I'm sorry. I can't do this anymore. I've got mixed minus. It's like Phil Spector's in my ear. But I grew up in northwest Florida. You wore wore all poplin. You wore seersucker, walked. And you know this. You walk you walk two blocks to the courthouse and it's like somebody hosed you down. So my outside, it's awful.

We also have congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post, Jackie Alameda. He's also state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Ehrenberg, and staff writer, New Yorker, Susan Glasser. Would you like me to try this? Okay, hold on one second. Okay, check. No, it on one second. OK, check now. It's still there. It's like if we if we plug this up to like the edges guitar, it would work perfectly. A lot of that. I'm taking it back out again. OK, listen, I know I know you told Phil not to bet on the Red Sox. He wouldn't listen to you. And now look, he loses $200 million.

We told him we don't have a starting staff. Don't do it, Phil. This is a fool's errand. Phil gambled stories out today, according to a memoir put out by an accomplished and acclaimed, apparently, gambler that Phil Mickelson gambled over $1 billion over the last decade or so, including hundreds of millions of dollars betting on the Ryder Cup team in 2012 while he was on that team. While he was on the team. Mickelson denies that, but that's extraordinary stuff. And this gambler says that's Pete Rose territory.

I was going to say, that's Pete Rose stuff when you're gambling on your own events. Yes. And Mickelson, as he has said, he puts it, he likes to have a friendly wager now and then. His handling prowess is well known. But these are extraordinary numbers and it will raise eyebrows if indeed it's one thing to be betting on for a golfer to betting on March Madness. Right. Something else entirely if you're betting on golf that you're involved in. Billion dollars. Speaking of the Red Sox, did they win last night?

They did, Joe. Did they? They did. They won 2-0. Paxton was good. They won three out of four against the Royals, which they're supposed to do against a bad team. It still doesn't matter much. No, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Let's get to the news. Federal prosecutors have proposed a start date for Donald Trump's, 2024, to, quote, vindicate the public's strong interest in a speedy trial. An interest guaranteed by the Constitution. Trump's lawyers, however, argued that it's the defendant who is guaranteed the right to a speedy trial.

And in this case, one would not benefit their client. Now they have till next Thursday to propose their own start date, which is likely to be after the 2024 election. Dave, I got a feeling. I got a feeling the judge is going to be a lot closer to the prosecutor's date than whatever date Donald Trump's legal team comes up with, because it's going to be so far removed from a rational date. Yeah, I think this is the case that's going to go first. You don't have the complicated SIPA issues like you do in the documents case. You don't have the need to get security clearances.

And you've got a judge and Judge Tutkin who wants to keep the ball rolling. So I think this is going first. But this is still a complicated case over seven states, six different unindicted co-conspirators. I mean, these are serious charges, not as serious as like wearing a tan suit, but serious enough that it would be delayed, I think, beyond January. But I still think it goes before the documents case and definitely before the election. Yeah. And Jackie, I mean, we've been looking at these different cases and it does seem, does it not, that this January 6th case, even though the scope of the crime seems so much larger to the general public, actual charges are pretty tight. Right. Compared to the documents case, which, again, seems like they have him dead to right there.

But you do have so many national security issues in that that are just going to take a long time to wade through. And we haven't spoken to Jack Smith himself about this, but what we've heard from, you know, experts, former prosecutors, people in his outer circle is that this was done purposefully in order to sort of skirt some of the other delays and road bumps and speed bumps that could come up up if his scope was a little bit broader, if there were actually indicted co-conspirators. But instead, he's going strictly after Trump. Even Judge Eileen Cannon, who is, as we all know, a bit more sympathetic towards Trump, had rejected their ask for the case being after the 2024 election.

It's still sort of crazy to say 2024 election out loud. Like I said, things are moving fast. Yeah, and so, you know, if you have someone like her who's giving, moving up trial times, it's more than likely Judge Tanya Chukin's going to rule in favor of prosecutors and Jack Smith. By the way, let's talk about Judge Cannon for a second. I haven't talked to you since that very interesting order that came out a couple of days ago. She did a couple of things that seemed bizarre. She did. She did something that Trump's lawyers didn't even ask for.

Question the propriety of the grand jury that exists in D.C. and expose it to the public. You're allowed to have another one. Why would she do that? She knows that in cases there are more than one grand jury. Often there are more than one grand jury. Why would she expose another grand jury? You know, it's interesting, Joe. Trump lawyer trustee Jim Trustee was on a right wing show and said there's a problem with having this separate grand jury. This was the day before the ruling came out. And so it made some people think that was that a message sent from Trump's team to the judge?

Now, I'm not going to accuse anyone of impropriety, but it is peculiar that she decided to do that when no one asked for that to be briefed. And she said, now I want you to tell me whether you can have a second grand jury, but a second grand jury can be used to investigate other crimes and to indict other people. So I think this issue is really bizarre. And it makes me think that we're back to the Judge Cannon of 2022 instead of Judge Cannon 2.0. Yeah. I mean, when you look, Jonathan O'Meara, just not to get off on this issue too long. But I mean, if you go if you go to the Drudge report on any given day, you see the mistakes that she's made. You know, she she's she's just not had much trial experience. But in this case, it seems all the mistakes are breaking Trump's way, at least in the documents case,

which, again, why we're saying this. This explains in part, I think, why why Jack Smith kept kept his his indictment so tight of Donald Trump, because he's in a rocket docket and that thing's going to actually move. Yeah. Any 50-50 ball in this case is going to Trump from Judge Cannon. She's been very deferential to his team's arguments. And that does seem why that Jack Smith is trying to move forward on a tight case here on the election interference. And Susan Glasner, it's not just that it's January 2nd, the day after New Year's, which Trump was fixated on in his Truth Social post, but that's less than two weeks out from the Iowa caucus that Iowa is January 15th.

So Donald Trump... Have they set that already? January 15th? January 15th is the Republican date for the Iowa caucus. So that's less than two weeks out. So this is good. This is just the first example of how often that the his Donald Trump's legal issues are going to overshadow his efforts to come back to the White House. Well, that's right. I mean, there's a collision course that's happening. There's no question about it between the twenty twenty four primaries and Donald Trump's rolling courtroom dates in 2024.

My concern for a while has been, though, that, you know, millions of Republican voters will have ended up voting before these charges end up being resolved. I mean, you know, January 2nd is an opening bid from the prosecutors. Let's stipulate to the idea that the judge wants it to move forward quickly and that it slips not too much. Well, that means you're going to have this extraordinary split screen spectacle of Donald Trump on trial in a criminal courtroom every day. You have to show up for that, unlike a civil case right in the middle of the campaigning. So he will be basically fusing his campaign message is that he's a victim in this courtroom. And we've already seen, I think, a preview of the kind of vituperative

attacks that he's going to launch as part of both his legal defense and his political defense. So I'm just really concerned that we're hurtling towards a kind of unprecedented once again crisis, you know, from Donald Trump. You know, his incredible self-absorption is leading us right back into a national drama in which we're not going to be able to get this guy out of our heads. Twenty twenty four is going to be once again the personal drama of Donald Trump inflicted on all of us, really. Yikes. Thank you so much for that, Susan. We are now depressed for the rest of 2023 and all of 2024. And we fear into 2025. We're learning more about the shooting death of a man who posted online threats to assassinate President Biden and several other Democratic officials. The FBI says Craig D. Robertson pointed his gun at agents early Wednesday morning

when they tried to serve warrants in his home in Provo, Utah. Agents shot and killed him after he didn't respond to their commands. Earlier this week, Robertson posted that he was preparing his camouflage and sniper rifle for President Biden's trip to Utah. The FBI says they've been monitoring the 75-year-old's online activities for a month. A senior law enforcement officer confirmed to NBC News that Donald Trump's own social media site, Truth Social, I guess they're part of the deep state now, alerted the FBI to Robertson's online activity back in March was actually the responsible thing to do. The warning was prompted by an extremely graphic threat made against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

First of all, thanks again to the people at Truth Social. It said this is a real threat to the president, the United States. But as far as Trump goes, it's hard to come up with an argument. You know, Dave, I'll tell you, when you're in law school and you're trying to figure out who's liable, there's the but for test, but for Jonathan Lemire driving, you know, driving wildly down a street after the Red Sox loss, take him from the scene. But for Jonathan, there wouldn't have been that crash at the intersection where doors opened up and it was kegs, kegs rolled all across. It was a tough childhood you had in Boston. But in this case, if you do that test, it's hard to imagine this man being dead, but for the and pointing rifles at the FBI and and and threatening to assassinate Joe Biden for stealing the election. It's hard to imagine this ever happening. But for Donald Trump's continued lies again, this guy keeps lying and it's his most

intense followers who pay for it. Some pay for it with their Social Security checks that they send to scam drives to help for his legal defense. Others pay for it by spending years in jail because they actually listened to him leading up to January 6th. And this man paid for it with his life. He bought into the lies. He bought into the lies. He bought into the conspiracy theory. And now because of Donald Trump, you know, you could make the argument he's dead, that you would make the argument that he's dead because of Donald Trump. No, you you and you wouldn't be too far removed from exactly that. Look at the people

that are in jail for January 6th that would not be in jail if it were not for Donald Trump. So if you go from January 6th, people that were convicted that are now doing time to this man did because he would post this kind of threat on the president. Who Donald Trump was until that day saying was not the president, was a fraud and all of these things. You can't take Donald Trump out of the story. It's like you and I grew up Baptist, like an evangelist coming to town and conning people out of their money that Jesus is coming tomorrow. Give me all your money. And then calling their wives saying you know your husband is spending his money irresponsibly right you you lured him into doing it yeah and that's who donald trump is you know what we called those people who'd come to you know what we'd call it when those people

come to our church and tell them that jesus was coming back next week what's that tuesday so jackie i heard that a lot growing up. Next week. Next week. And at some point you go, hold on a second. The late great planet Earth. This may be just to sell books or to get money. Nobody knows the exact time when Jesus is coming back. But they didn't wear tan suits. What's that?

They did not wear tan suits. No, they did not. I told you. Probably white patent leather shoes, head to toe, big smile, hair that comes across and gray, perfectly coiffed like Lindsey Graham. And all the people said, amen. All right. Jackie, I don't even know how I segue out of that one. Well, I think we need to rebrand the suit it's a camel suit okay very fast and forward expertly wait a second i always liked you too jackie jackie is that camel hair it may be it doesn't have to be camel hair well no no not the actual hair but that's then tan yeah yeah

she's saying from obama she's saying... You learn from Obama. She's saying, she's saying from my description of your suit, my description's a bit pedestrian. If you're fashion forward, you would call it camel, right? Well, there's this amazing man

on Twitter who talks all about expert tailoring. I don't know why I follow him. But I've learned a lot. I need to do that. I'll find him. Fine, let me know. I'm hearing polyester is I need to do that. I'll find him. Fine. Let me know. I'm

hearing polyester is the next big craze. I'm joking. I'm joking. All right. So let's let's continue to bob and weave in and out of all of this stuff. And Jackie, again, talking about what the tragedy that happened in Utah. It's not it's it's really it's not just the conspiracy against against Joe Biden and against Democrats. It's so deadly here. It's this constant attack against the FBI. Since the FBI has been forced to investigate Donald Trump getting his documents. You know, they tried to get the FBI agents named so they could be threatened. And there was, you know, news stories about this fevered pitch hunt to unmask the FBI agents that actually did the search.

But doesn't this show the cost of telling people, whether it's on Fox News or coming from Donald Trump, that the FBI is coming after you? They're coming to knock down the doors of your home and they're coming to shoot you. So you hear that time and time and time again when you make a threat against the president, the United States and the FBI comes to check it out. You know, your guns up like again, hard not to look at all of these lies and these conspiracy theories against the FBI and not say they were responsible for the death of this man. I think it's really smart and necessary to look at all of these attacks in that context of no one comes into Donald Trump's incinerator without being tarnished in some way from the insurrectionists who are all charged for going and storming the Capitol on January 6th. Trump's behest to now the weaponization campaign that that Congress is running in order to defend Trump against the FBI and the Justice Department.

All of these have real life consequences. I mean, talking about defunding the FBI. I mean, it's anathema to the Republican Party and everything that that conservatives have stood for for quite some time up until Trump. But I mean, when you look at the trail that Trump has left in his wake, it's really important, I think, to talk about these sorts of cases and kind of lump them in and show that rhetoric matters. At the end of the day, you know, leveling all of these threats against Alvin Bragg, Fannie Willis. We're just waiting for Tanya Chukkin to get thrown into the mix there. They have consequences. And the FBI is just trying to do their jobs here,

despite whatever spin we're inevitably going to hear in right wing media today about sort of how, again, these talking points that that the FBI is, you know, a tool of the Biden administration and has been weaponized. And we should know NBC is reporting that just this week, Judge Judkins had to increase her security detail. She had three agents with her yesterday just to get coffee elsewhere in the courthouse. Dave, the political rhetoric is so divisive and so heated. And there's so much violence infused into the talk, obviously from the right. We've heard Donald Trump just recently talk about how there'll be riots in the streets if he is convicted on any of these charges. And we've discussed on the show quite a bit how law enforcement, federal and local, are deeply concerned that violence

is now part of our political narrative. And we could see acts of violence, January 6th-like acts of violence again next year, either connected to the Trump legal matters or the election itself. You're in this. You're on the front lines of this. How worried are you?

It's concerning. I mean, these attacks on federal law enforcement have real consequences. Remember the attack on the FBI office in Cincinnati? This has come from the Law and Order Party, remember? So it is a problem. That's why you're having this hearing on a protective order today. It's coming for Judge Chutkan as to whether Donald Trump can disseminate some of the information that he's going to get in this case against him. This is different, though, than a partial gag order. I think that is going to come ultimately because Donald Trump is unable to stop the rhetoric. And when he goes and continues to do it,

I think that eventually there will be a request for a partial gag order. But you only impose that gag order if you're willing to enforce it, if you're willing to possibly put a set of steel bracelets around Donald Trump's wrists. And if you're not able to do that, then all the protective orders, all the gag orders in the world mean nothing. I mean, I'm sorry. You know, people say there are two standards on Trump's side. Well, there are two standards going for Trump. I mean, you and I both know some of the,

I'll say, stuff that he says online, that he says in crowds about federal judges, about federal prosecutors. Again, in my experience in northwest Florida, that criminal defendant would have been called in front of a judge and say and judge say, you know what? You're going to have a night in jail to think about this. And I mean, seriously, I think most people that practice in northwest Florida would say the same thing. And then the judge had turned to the lawyer and say, and if you can't control your client, you better have him find another one or you control him. And if you can't control him, you'll be in jail with him. Like nobody, no judges, no federal judges put up with this type of behavior. That's the bizarre thing about this double standard stuff. I like laugh. Donald Trump has had a double standard break in his direction from the very beginning.

Judge Shutkin knows that Trump is running for president. And there was a speaking indictment out there which detailed his alleged actions. So the judge is going to give him a lot of ability to respond. But at some point, you cross the line. I think he's crossed the line already and he's been given a lot of deference. So I think ultimately there will be a partial gag order imposed. But then the big question is, will it be enforced? If you and I did some of this stuff, we would have our leash pulled already. As a prosecutor, we limit defendants first amendment rights all the time. When you go to first appearance, you're limited to contacting the victims.

You're even told not to use alcohol in many cases. So you don't have the same constitutional rights as someone who has not been indicted for a series of crimes. Right. And I know you got to go. But as an active prosecutor, just reading the tea leaves, I'm curious, when do you think George is going to come next week? I think it's clear the indictment is coming. And I think actually that's the second strongest case. The strongest case to me as a prosecutor is the documents case as an airtight case. Yeah, I think the second strongest case is in Georgia. Find me eleven thousand seven hundred and eighty votes. He's on tape and nothing influences a jury more than hearing the defendant's own words on a recording.

I'll tell you what, I think the January 6th case also really tight because you've just you've just got the testimony of all of Trump's people basically saying there's this conspiracy and it's moving forward. Anyway, Dave Ehrenberg, thank you so much. Great to see you as always. You send Jared Kushner to the Middle East when you have Rex Tillerson and Mike Pompeo as secretaries of state, two incredibly accomplished men. You send him. Why? We found out the answer six months after he left office. Two billion dollars from the Saudis to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, $2 billion. And because he did all this and more with his family,

he's normalizing this conduct. And now we have another president who's doing exactly the same thing and allowing Hunter Biden to run roughshod, making money from foreign governments and selling access to Joe Biden. Let's see. Two billion dollars laptop. I don't think it's the same, but that is former New Jersey governor and presidential candidate Chris Christie making a comparison between Hunter Biden and Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner, the one very key difference. Unlike Jared Kushner, Hunter Biden is and has not ever been a White House employee. So, listen, we don't like it, but it happens. Billy Beer. I mean, Jimmy Carter had Billy Carter, right? And I think Reagan. Did Reagan have some siblings. I don't know.

Bill Clinton certainly did. Sometimes, you know, sometimes you can't control family members and you want to, but you can't. There's a big difference between that and and people having to be pulled in line when Billy starts showing up next to Muammar Gaddafi and parades and having somebody working inside the White House, doing a White House business and coming out the other side. Two billion dollars richer. I mean, the compare again is again. I'm not talking about the governor here so much as I'm talking about all the Republicans that are freaking out over Hunter Biden when they don't look at all the things Donald Trump's children and in-laws got who actually worked inside the White House and got these sweetheart deals from Saudi Arabia and China while they're inside the White House, Rev, working inside the White House. Talk about pay to play. And I think that that's the real issue here. When you have a congressional committee wanting to look at someone, whoever it is, that has shouldn't condone it. That doesn't mean some relatives don't trade off of situations like that. But you don't have oversight over them. You don't have oversight over Congress.

People are senators cousins. So, I mean, what they're doing is overstepping the authority of the committee. Even though we may all say that was a bad thing somebody did right they have no oath or obligation to answer to a congressional committee because they're not a government employee yeah i mean and you had so reagan i alex just told me is neil reagan owned owned radio stations um reminds me that Lady Bird magically got got licenses to TV stations in Texas and became incredibly wealthy. You you you look at the Bushes, some of the Bush kids, the same did did very well on the side. So these Republicans, I mean, they're sitting here looking at Hunter Biden and somehow missing again, not only the two billion dollar example right in front of them, but also a long history of this. I mean, Jared Kushner continues to cash out on the Trump

presidency and all of the connections he made with the UAE and the Saudis throughout his four years in the White House in this senior job that he had when he ostensibly should have been advocating and negotiating policies on behalf of the U.S., but was instead fomenting and creating these relationships with people who he now continues to do business with. But there is a long history of troubled family members and children in the presidency in the White House. And I think I've read the Devin Archer testimony several times. And, you know, the headlines couldn't be clearer. Devin Archer says that Joe Biden had no knowledge,

no discussions with Hunter Biden of the business dealings that they were doing. And if you read really closely, I think the picture and the portrait that is painted by Devin Archer is actually a really sad one of one of the son who's exploiting his dad, taking advantage of him, sort of doing everything he can to capitalize on his name, selling this brand. That's absolutely true. And by the way, we we've seen it time and again. I don't think it's right. In fact, if I were in that position, I'd look at all my family members and say, you know, if you do anything like this, you ain't going to have a problem with the feds. You're going to have problems with me.

But it happens time and time and time again. And again, we have an example of a sad situation here. These other, I mean, Billy Carter is a sad situation. You look at some of the Bush issues. You look at you look at it like you said. I mean, it's it's somebody in the shadow of either a brother or father or somebody else. And they go on, they try to trade on the name. And yeah, it's it's it's pretty terrible. But. If you have somebody that's actually making two billion dollars off the Saudis, building a relationship off of Middle East peace talks and off the Saudis, it again taught once again, the false equivalency is outrageous. And they keep do we have that clip of of the poor guy, the poor Republican trying to long. Yeah. Let's you know, sometimes and I know this better than

most. Sometimes you should just stay off a TV. Right. Sometimes it doesn't pay. That happens to me about 75 percent of the time I get on TV. But but here's here's a congressman from New York that needs to give me a call the next time he thinks he wants to go on an interview. Play the tape. Despite nearly two years now of an investigation into the president's son, while you have certainly unearthed a trove of evidence that the committee says proves the president's association there has not been produced a smoking gun clear-cut undeniable proof of the president's involvement with his son's foreign business deals what do you say to that well we've never claimed that we have direct money going to the president but many members of his family have received money from foreign governments.

And this is something that is very important for the American people to know. I wanted to follow up with you, sir, on a point you made a moment ago, which is you said we never claimed that any money was funneled directly to the president. That is precisely the claim that the chairman of your committee, James Comer, and also Jim Jordan, have made many times on public record. We are putting an investigation together, laying out the facts between on the business dealings of this family. We are going to continue this investigation. I believe impeachment inquiry would give us more tools to get the job done. And then at the end of the clip, Jillian Turner there, who was tough, Jillian Turner said, OK, again, we just have to tell our viewers that they actually have claimed a direct line from from

Hunter Biden and these deals to Joe Biden. But actually, the problem he had was he's on a committee where they're lying. He actually went on TV and told the truth. And it was sort of crossways with Jordan and Comer. But that is what they keep trying to claim, right, that somehow Joe Biden, doddering Joe Biden, who they say can't even think straight, is somehow the criminal mastermind of some international money ring. I mean, kudos to Jillian Turner on Fox News for great fact-checking him in real time because she's absolutely right. Comer and everyone on that committee has said several times they have made these unsubstantiated claims and been unable to find the evidence to prove it, that there is a direct link between Hunter Biden and his business affairs and Joe Biden. There is no such thing. They haven't found anything.

And now Comer is moving the goalposts because they know that if they do need to impeach Joe Biden, there there is no smoking gun, at least not yet. He now says he's going to subpoena Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. We'll see how far that goes. But I've never understood people that say things one day and act like tomorrow's never going to come. Right. So Comer will say things again. Who's the guy you were talking about? That testimony. Devin Archer. Devin Archer. The star GOP witness. Yeah, exactly.

The smoking gun. The star GOP witness. They got their smoking gun. They got their smoking gun. It's all horrible. And then the next, you know, next day you read the transcript. Oh, wait, this actually breaks in Biden's way. They've done that time and time again where they go, we've got this tape. The FBI has a tape that shows that we have this. And then, you know, poor old Grassley has to go out and say, well, we don't care whether he's guilty or not. We're going after him anyway. And then they go, oh, old Grassley has to go out and say, well, we don't care whether he's guilty or not.

We're going after him anyway. And then they go, oh, we've got this great informant. We've got this great informant that's going to bring him down. He knows where all the bodies are buried. And then you find out he's an international fugitive. He's like an agent for the communist Chinese. He's been illegally funneling Iranian oil. I can't make this up. I wish I were smart enough to make this up. Bill Barr looked into his claims under the Trump presidency and closed them. Right. And he's funneling oil to the Communist Chinese party, Iranian oil illegally. And what you just said, Jackie, we can't underline enough. Anytime these conspiracy theories come up or these two tiered conspiracy, you know, there's two tiers of justice. Everything they're accusing the Biden administration of not doing the FBI or Justice Department. It was actually the Trump Justice Department and FBI

where Trump would say, charge Hillary Clinton in 2017. And, you know, Sessions, FBI, Sessions, Justice Department, Mr. President, there's no crime there. 2018, he went back, charge Hillary Clinton. What happens?

The Justice Department looks at it, they go, Mr. President, there is no crime we can't charge hillary clinton same thing with hunter biden it's nonsense but anyway that's that that's that's the thing and and these investigations trump's justice tried this if they've got an issue they need to get bill barr and jeff sessions and all the AGs there. And you wanted to say something? I mean, Jonathan, we keep saying there's no smoking gun. There's not even a gun here. I mean, smoking or non-smoking. You're going to subpoena Joe Biden to ask him what based on what? I mean,

you're the lawyer here, Joe. You have to have a basis for witness. What are you bringing him here for? To ask him, does he know his son? Right. Because he's not alleged to have been involved in any of that. Jared had the tag. He was an official part of the administration representing the White House. Hunter never was in that position. So what are you even talking about here that would justify discussing a subpoena? There's nothing there. The stretch run of the 2020 election, Donald Trump asked his Justice Department to investigate his political opponent, which is exactly, of course, what the Republicans are claiming President Biden and his team are doing now. And look, the Archer testimony presents a sad and even unseemly tale for Hunter Biden.

But there's no evidence there. There's no direct evidence that President Biden himself was involved. But that's not stopping the escalation. And Susan, I mean, Congressman Comer, who on one hand has acknowledged he's doing this because it's taken a toll on President Biden's poll numbers. He's talking subpoenas now that he wants to go that step. He's giving new life to the idea of an impeachment inquiry, even after House Speaker McCarthy a few weeks ago tried to tap the brakes on that. And it seems it couldn't be clearer that this is an effort just to muddy the waters,

to come up with some sort of false equivalency to all the legal trouble that Donald Trump's in. And they're trying to paint a bad faith image that is the same as the case with the President Biden and his family. Yeah, I mean, the timing that we're having this conversation is not a coincidence. Republicans from the very beginning of taking back over the House intended to sort of launch this kind of an investigation.

They're essentially acting as a part of the defense team, it seems to me, for the Donald Trump legal troubles and seeking to distract and to have us talking about a whole different set of stories. In that sense, it's very much like Benghazi. Remember, it was Kevin McCarthy, I think, who said the quiet part out loud about the Benghazi investigation of Hillary Clinton that was meant essentially explicitly to tar her in the context of the 2016 presidential campaign. I think that's what we're seeing here. It's very clear.

But, you know, we might actually see. I do not at all exclude the possibility that there will be an impeachment inquiry launched by House Republicans on the basis of, you know, no direct evidence at all that they've been able to turn up related to President Biden. I think it's about the death of impeachment

as a meaningful constraint. With the prospects in the divided country of ever having a conviction in the Senate. Basically, no, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, we're talking about a situation where impeachment has just become another politicized tool in the toolkit for Republicans. It's a messaging impeachment that they seem to be demanding right now. And, you know, Kevin McCarthy, he doesn't have a very big or solid Republican majority. He is in many ways at the mercy of factions of the most extreme of his members. So, you know, we're hearing this chatter

all throughout the August recess. When Congress comes back in September, I would not at all be surprised that they move forward with more investigations. The more Donald Trump is indicted, the more his defense team and the House Republicans becomes a part of his legal case. Oh, yeah. And, you know, Susan, there is a cost to that, though, for Republicans. Think about the number of Republicans that won in Biden districts. Those people, every time these Republicans go on a go down a crazy trail, they're the ones that end up paying the price for it. It's interesting in your your new piece before we let you go. I want

you to talk about your new piece because you talk about what the 2024 election is going to be about. It's going to be Bidenomics versus the Trump freak show and a fascinating piece. And in those districts, in those Biden districts, those swing districts, they're going to be curious. They're going to actually want to know what their government has done for them. They're going to want to know, has Bidenomics worked for them? They're not going to be interested in this Trump freak show. So it seems to me there are cause

for this sort of behavior, aren't there? Well, I think, you know, you're absolutely right, Joe. For the last few election cycles, you've seen Democrats again and again go with the idea that we're going to campaign around a sort of a vision, at least for the U.S.,

as some kind of a positive agenda. That's why you have President Biden traveling around the country right now talking about some of those very positive economic indicators, low unemployment, inflation seems to be easing, the recovery is in full steam. There's investments from things like the infrastructure bill are now kicking in, and there's actually groundbreakings and the like. But I think the point about the politics is a really important point. The Republican Party has become the Trump Party. They don't seem to have, especially if they go for Trump as their nominee again, there's not a positive agenda for governing that they're offering people

looking ahead to 2024. i just keep thinking about that most telling data point from the 2020 campaign which is when the republicans met in their convention they didn't even approve a platform for the first time that anyone can remember their platform was literally we support whatever Donald Trump wants. And Trump has said his campaign in 2024 is about revenge. It's about weaponizing the deep state. And he's going to take it back over and he's going to seek retribution against his enemies. And, you know, that's not really a program of governing for the country. So those are very radically different visions of politics. All right. Susan Glasser,

thank you as always. And you can read Susan's latest piece for The New Yorker titled 2024 Preview, Bidenomics versus the Trump Freak Show. And it's online right now. New reporting from NBC News highlighting the Chinese Communist Party's effort to track down members of the Uyghur ethnic minority group who have fled the country. Now, the nation that once provided safe haven for refugees are struggling to keep the Chinese government at bay. NBC News chief international correspondent Keir Simmons joins us live from London with that story. Keir, so help me understand something. We're all aware that the Uyghurs, like maybe two million of them are put in this glorified concentration camp because China is trying to homogenize the entire culture there.

I'm I'm curious, why would they care about we Uyghurs that that escape and that immigrate to other countries? Why why are they so so dead set on stomping these people out of existence? You know, Joe, that question goes right to the key point. Let me map it out like this. First, and going back years, you have the Chinese government accusing members of that Uyghur community and other minority communities in Xinjiang of separatism. And the Chinese government accusing members of that Uyghur community and other minority communities in Xinjiang of separatism and the Chinese government says terrorism. It then instigates this policy of putting, as you've mentioned, more than a million is reported into what the Chinese call re-education camps, which others call internment camps. That sends shockwaves around the world. People are stunned and appalled by it around the world. And many, many Uyghurs speak out about their treatment.

And now what we've been investigating, the allegation is, is that the Chinese government is kind of going around the world, if you like, trying to silence those Uyghurs, trying to silence them by putting pressure on them, relating to their families, even potentially trying to bribe them. Or in one case, which we've focused on, putting out an Interpol red notice to have somebody arrested, which then gets dropped. Now, this man, Joe, has been in prison in Morocco for two years, for two years, wanted by China. We had a chance exclusively to actually speak to him by phone. Idris Hassan is in a prison in Morocco. His wife and young daughter, thousands of miles away in Turkey, listening in to our phone call as he tells us about

his two-year nightmare. Hassan was arrested by Moroccan authorities, wanted by China under an Interpol Red Notice, which Interpol confirms has since been dropped. He's a member of the mostly Muslim Uyghur minority from China, the Chinese government accused by the US of committing genocide against the Uyghurs. More than a million were put through what Beijing calls re-education camps, separating families.

While in exile, Hassan campaigned against that treatment. China calls that terrorism and wants him extradited. He says he's innocent and now his wife and three children live in fear. You must miss them. I miss very, very much my family. I have a picture of my family. and three children live in fear. You must miss them. More than 50,000 Uyghurs have sought refuge in Turkey, but they haven't escaped their fear of China. A new report obtained exclusively by NBC News documents disturbing efforts by China to allegedly target exiled Uyghurs.

We have your father and sister. You'll never see them again if you don't collaborate with us, the report says one anonymous victim was told. The report by Safeguard Defenders, a non-profit human rights group highly critical of the Chinese government, describes cases like Cevlan Shememet, living in Turkey, who says his family was forced to call him from China and urged him not to speak up on human rights. When you got that phone call, did you believe that they were speaking? I know that the phone call is belong to the Chinese police department.

The report's author, Yalkun Aluyo, tells us he's a victim himself. How many of your friends and relatives have been imprisoned? Back and forth, about 30 of my relatives from my father's side. 30? On just your father's side? Back and forth, yes. Some of them were detained in the camps for a few years and then released, and some of them are still serving. My father is serving 16 years in prison for nothing.

My uncle is serving life sentence for nothing. My uncle-in-law, who was taken from hospital bed, is serving 15 years in prison for nothing. The Chinese embassy in Washington tells NBC News China is ruled by law. It cannot be accused of torture, persecution or arbitrary detention against Uyghurs. It's not about human rights, ethnicity or religion. It's about fighting violence, terrorism and separatism. But this year, a U.N. working group concluded that detentions of Uyghurs was based on discrimination and their Muslim faith. And two years since he was arrested, Idris And you know, Joe, we talk about these countries in the middle, if you like, when we talk about

the competition between the U.S. and China, these countries in the middle, countries like Morocco. I think one of the questions for lawmakers in Washington, I think for the Biden administration, is what is being done. It's clear that a country like Morocco is under pressure from China to put equal pressure on Morocco to say this man has been in prison for two years, hasn't faced trial, and that the U.S. sees his position differently. I mean, that's where the battle is in many ways with China from the American perspective. And I think that's an important question that people should be asking there. It's the difference between freedom and tyranny. NBC's Keir Simmons, thank you so much. We greatly appreciate it. And, Jackie, just really quickly, you look at the Uyghurs.

You look at the crackdown on Hong Kong. You look at the crackdown on political freedom, religious freedom under Xi over the past several years. The crackdown on the most successful entrepreneurs going after Jack Ma and several others. It seems like it's one self-inflicted wound after another by the Chinese on the Chinese. This is what you would imagine the 2024 Republican candidates to all be talking about right now. Actually, the Biden administration just leveled more sanctions against some of the companies that are utilizing forced labor of the Uyghurs in China, which has actually created a little bit of a problem for our supply chain as Biden's trying to push everyone into clean energy.

It's a whole other bucket of issues here. But I think seeing sustained pressure from the Biden administration on Beijing is something we're going to see even more of going into the 2024 election.