Morning Joe - Morning Joe 8/17/23

Episode Date: August 17, 2023

Majority ‘probably wouldn’t’ vote for Trump if he’s GOP nominee, according to new polling.

Beautiful shot of Washington, D.C. for you on this Thursday morning. It is six o'clock on the East Coast. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Thursday, August 17th, and we have a lot to get to, including a trial date proposal from Fulton County D.A. Fonny Willis. We'll have the latest on her ambitious timeline. Plus, a woman is now facing charges for threatening the federal judge in Donald Trump's

election case. We'll have the disturbing details on that. Meanwhile, a Trump ally who's been off the radar for a while is making headlines this morning. We'll show you the video of Roger Stone that could do serious damage to the claims from Trump's legal team. I saw it on Ari Melba last night. It was staggering. It's staggering. He's actually, before the election's called. Yeah, mapping it out.

He's mapping out the entire the entire conspiracy, the enterprise that they followed to undermine the election and to take votes away from the voters and have Republican Trump friendly state legislators steal states for Donald Trump. And they follow that roadmap. What's fascinating is, again, he did this before the election was called. We'll have that videotape for you. Also ahead, a significant show of solidarity from allies in the Pacific. We'll explain the major meeting happening tomorrow at Camp David.

With us, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico and author of The Big Lie, Jonathan Lemire, president of the National Action Network and host of MSNBC's Politics Nation, Reverend Al Sharpton and founder of the conservative website, The Bulwark. Charlie Sykes is with us this morning. Let's start with new polling on how Americans view the serious legal issues surrounding Donald Trump and their impact on the presidential race. Despite strong support among Republican voters, new numbers show Trump's criminal charges could spell trouble for him in a general election.

That's an understatement. We have a lot of legal issues to get to pertaining to all of this. But first, the politics of it seems to be playing out. In the latest AP NORC Center survey, nearly two thirds of adults, 64 percent, say they would probably or definitely not support Trump if he is the Republican nominee next year. Overall, 62 percent view the former president unfavorably compared to 33% who view him favorably. As for the four pending cases against him, just 15% of Americans are buying the ex-president's claims that he did nothing illegal in the Georgia case. And when it comes to his hoarding of nuclear secrets, on the contrary, 53 percent say his actions were illegal.

Fifty three percent also say they approve of the decision to indict Trump in the federal election interference case. So we have a number of polls here. There's more coming. Dan had suggested that we break these up beforehand. And I thought, no, why don't we get them all? There's so much to get to there before we even get to the Fox News poll. But Charlie Sykes, this is what Republicans have quietly been panicking about. You look at these numbers, 64 percent.

Jonathan O'Meara, we'll go to you real quick. Sixty four percent in the AP poll, 64 percent say they're not going to support Trump next year. I actually saw people connected with Mitch McConnell and other Republicans tweeting that out, that this is devastating. I mean, that's who the Republicans are moving towards putting up. He has a 33% approval rating, a favorable rating in that poll. The majority believe what he did was illegal. And there are so many other polls that came out yesterday that are showing the same thing. Independence breaking dramatically away from Donald Trump.

Independents saying he should have been indicted. Independents saying overwhelmingly that what he did was illegal. And you look at the cl- it's strange that, to me at least, but actually the Georgia case, voters are more hostile toward him on the Georgia case than actually election interference,, those two cases look like the strongest, which is exactly what Andy McCarthy wrote about in The New York Post a couple of days ago. That is those classified docs and the Georgia election interference cases that are going to cause him the most trouble, probably legally and politically. Well, that's the same view held in Trump world, that those are the two cases all along that they've been most concerned about, in part because they're the easiest to understand.

Americans, even who are not paying that much attention, who sometimes get lost in the steady stream of headlines that emanate from Donald J. Trump, they get the idea of you shouldn't have nuclear secrets at your golf club in Florida. They also have heard the phone call in which he's pushing the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to find him the votes he needs to win. They get that. That resonates. That breaks through.

And the poll is startling, Joe. Going through a little bit more here. You know, there are 54 percent of people polled say Donald Trump threatened the very idea of democracy, while only 19% say he defended. And again, among the general populations, this is both parties, 64% of Americans, 64% of Americans say they will definitely or probably not support Trump in 2024. That only leaves you with 36%. You can't win an election with 36%. So this is as much as Trump has tightened his grip on the Republican Party, and while he is far and away ahead in the GOP primary field, these are general election

numbers. These are general election numbers that not only would spell a loss for Donald Trump, but drag down the rest of the ticket, too. And that's why there are a lot of Republicans panicking that they could lose the House and the Senate would be their chance to retake the Senate would also be jeopardized if Trump's name is atop the ballot. You know, we've been very careful not to draw any conclusions on where Republicans are going to go just because it's been so impossible to figure that out over the past six, seven years, my former party. I will say, Charlie Sykes, for me, this is feeling a lot like June of 1974, leading up to Nixon's resignation in August. Trump will not back out. But I tell the story repeatedly of my father. When I'm trying to get my arms around how are they staying with Donald Trump? I remember my own dad staying with Nixon until the very end and then reading the transcripts of the tapes and saying that guy is unworthy to be president.

You look at these numbers. I mean, 64 percent of Americans saying they're not going to support Trump. His approval rating at 33 percent, 54 percent saying he threatened democracy itself, 18 percent saying maybe he strengthened it. His unfavorable views exploding and, you know, continuing to go up. And then you look at these actions, classified documents, majority say what he did was illegal. And Georgia election interference, 51 percent say it was illegal. 13 percent say unethical. Only 15 percent, only 15 percent of Americans, let's underline this, agree with Donald Trump that he did nothing wrong. Only 15 percent of Americans agree with Donald Trump that he did nothing wrong in the classified documents case.

Only 14 percent of Americans say he did nothing wrong in the hush money case. Of course, that is by far, for good reason, the weakest case. But these numbers, it sure seems like they're moving in one direction. And Charlie, the bad news for him is the more people find out about these cases, the worse news it is for Donald Trump. Yeah, they ought to be a stunning reality check. Now we'll find out whether the Republican Party continues to be immune to reality. This ought to be the moment, by the way, though, that we the it ought to mark the end of all the magical thinking among Republicans that, you know, something, something,

something unicorn was going to come along and take care of Donald Trump, that they didn't have to do it, that somebody else would take care of the problem. You know, that that that that sense that they could amplify and rationalize and defend him and somehow run against him for president. Look, this is with this moment where we have all of the major indictments have come down and yet Republican voters continue to rally around him. So there is the challenge. What what does Mike Pence do? What does Ron DeSantis do? What does Glenn Youngkin do? Are they going to continue to go along with this sort of, you know, same old conventional wisdom? We have to humor him. Remember that quote right after the election? What harm would it be to simply humor him? We'll continue to echo his comments about the

weaponization of the justice system. But as you're pointing out, there are these giant reality checks out there saying Republicans, do you know what you are about to do? You know, we keep talking about these focus groups of Trump voters and what people are saying in diners in West Virginia. Take a step back and you realize you have more than 60 percent of Americans who say, no, we are done with Donald Trump. We're not going to vote for Donald Trump. That ought to be the really the the ultimate reality check for Republican voters and leaders right now. Well, we were joking yesterday about Chuck Rosenberg, about how Mika wanted to talk to me about what somebody was saying on another cable news channel. And it was important to know what other people are saying and hearing and ingesting at night.

And I was listening to some music to kind of forget about the day, the news day. And I said, we don't we don't need to hear what they say. Doesn't matter what they say. What matters is what goes on in the courtrooms. And we all know where this is going. And you look at these you look at these poll numbers. We all know where this is going. And I think the question, Mika, is how long does Tim Scott, again, somebody that I've said is a very strong candidate. How long does Tim Scott humiliate himself by pretending that Donald Trump did nothing wrong?

How long does he humiliate himself by talking about Hunter Biden taking seven million dollars, saying nothing about Jared Kushner's three billion dollars? Only one percent of that is Steve Ratner told is coming from the United States and the rest coming from people he worked with in the Gulf. Like, how long are they going to paint these false equivalencies? I'm not saying Jared did anything illegal, but if you're going to say Donald Trump sold nuclear secrets and Hunter Biden making $7 million from three different countries, and it's just seven, from three different countries, and you're going to create this false narrative? I keep trying to say it, and I wish somebody would listen to me in the Republican Party other than Chris Christie. This ends badly. This ends badly. You look terrible defending this guy who tried to steal an election and undermine democracy for the rest of your life. Well, more importantly, you look weak. They look weak.

They do look weak. You want to elect a leader that can stand strong in the face of whatever comes his or her way. Right. And if something is wrong, a leader will say that's wrong. That's not that's not what our Constitution says. Right. That's not what a democracy is about. That's not the president I will be. Where is that? And if, as Jonathan O'Meara pointed out, a majority of Americans say Donald Trump threatened the very existence of democracy itself. Only 18 percent said he strengthened it.

So I agree. You know, we can go to diners where we want to go to. And every American's voice is valid. Every vote should count the same. But this I think the media needs to just wake up and stop obsessing on the people who make you catastrophize, who say the craziest things to get more views, more hits, more whatever, because the reality is, I mean, what matters, as Chuck said, is what happens in the courtroom. Not the crazy stuff you're reading on social media, or that you're watching on television on another network, or that your crazy uncle sends to you something that he thought about while he was on the toilet. And you give that as much credence as you do news stories that come out of the Wall Street Journal with hundreds and hundreds of journalists, with dozens and dozens

of editors, with the understanding that if they don't get it right, they're in big trouble. Right. So so you can do all that if you want. You're wasting your time because right now it's what matters inside the jury box. And politically, Mika, you look at these numbers, you see what independents are doing. And let me say again, Republicans, this doesn't get better. Isn't it interesting that Democrats want cameras in the courtroom? Democrats want transparency. Democrats want this trial before the election. If you're innocent, what are you saying? You said, I want cameras in the courtroom. Yeah, get this. I'm innocent. Give us time to get ready. And you're damn right. I want this before the election

because I want my name cleared. What does Donald Trump and his Republican supporters do? They say, oh, no, no, no, no cameras in the courtroom. No, no, we don't want no transparency. We don't we don't want people to actually see what he did. And yet let's push it off after the election, after the election. We don't want the jury. We don't have the jury to have a say before the election. Let me tell you, that's somebody who's guilty. Because if you're accused of doing something you didn't do, you want transparency if you've been charged.

You want that trial as soon as possible. You want it on TV for all the world to see. They don't. And also politically, Mika, again, what matters is the jury box. But politically, look at where the independents are going here. The independents tell the tale for Republicans. So Fox News poll shows the majority of voters think Donald Trump broke the law in his efforts to stay in power following the 2020 election.

In the survey, 53 percent say his actions after the vote were illegal. Wow. That includes 62 percent of independents who believe he broke the law. I'll go on to a new Quinnipiac poll conducted after Jack Smith's federal indictment of Trump this month, but before the Georgia, the Fulton County indictment showing 54 percent of Americans think the former president should be prosecuted on federal criminal charges relating to his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. So here those independent numbers make it 62. 62% of independents believe Donald Trump, what he did was illegal. 62%. Only 22%. Only the wrong one. There we go.

Only 22% say it was not illegal. So 62 percent to 22 percent. That's who the Republican Party, that's who they're embracing. So there's a lot of questions as to why Republicans would continue to walk down this road, Reverend Dowell. Candidates like Tim Scott refusing to answer questions about basic, basic things that Donald Trump did. Republican leaders in Congress as well not seeing how badly this ends. I mean, do the polls at this point, do the polls trigger a turn from Donald Trump? Because everyone with a brain who understands basics of the law and the Constitution can see where this is going. It shows the political cowardice of a lot of the opponents of Donald Trump in the primaries,

because apparently their voting public, the Republican voting public, is clearer than they are. How do you have these kinds of polls and you don't have any of the major candidates that are challenging or claiming to be challenging Donald Trump for the nomination? Even near where the polls are saying their voters are. And it is outrageous when you think about it, taking a step back, that the leadership of the party has acquiesced to somebody that is not only legally in question, but is clearly toxic to a lot of the public. So what are you winning here? And I think Joe makes a very good point. If you have nothing to hide, if you accuse me of something that I felt I was totally innocent of, I would say rush to trial because I want to be acquitted at best, hung jury at worst, before the election. Why would I want to wait after the election?

If I'm acquitted before the election, it gives me a momentum if I'm Donald Trump to say that, see, I can win these primaries. I already proved one case wrong. The fact that you know the facts means you want to kick the can down the curve as long as you can, because you know what you know and you know everybody else may know it at trial. Exactly. And Charlie Sykes, I mean, is it cowardice or is it stupidity? Like Donald Trump's Republican Party has lost every election since 2017. I don't have to count the thing. But here's the thing. They know they're going to lose in 24 with Donald Trump at the head of the ticket. They know that you look at these numbers. They know that.

So, I mean, when I was a Republican, not only do we like to win, we like to win big. I didn't like close races. I never had close races. I got angry if it ever looked like it was going to be a close race. We ran and we ran hard and we ran to win. And now you've got people who are running to lose. They see the numbers. They know they're going to win. And now you've got people who are running to lose. They see the numbers. They know they're going to lose.

And these politicians, you know, it's almost like a doctor that opens up a patient to see if they have cancer, finds it all over their body, closes the body and tells the patient, you're fine. You're good. you're going out, clean bill of health, enjoy yourself. When the doctor knows what's going to happen, this is what Republican leaders are doing now. They know they're going to lose with Trump. Well, they have two problems. Number one, they're not leaders, they're followers of the base, and they've been doing this for seven years. And many of them know, obviously one, they're not leaders. They're followers of the base. And they've been doing this

for seven years. And many of them know, obviously, that they're going to lose with Trump. But they're also afraid they will lose without Trump. I mean, this is this is the the corner they've they put themselves in. They've got a base that is so rabidly behind the cult leader that that if Donald Trump is defeated or pushed aside, they're worried that those voters won't turn out and vote. So they have to figure out how do you push past Donald Trump without antagonizing his base? And nobody has figured that out yet. But I do think, you know, to your previous questions, I think the debate in Milwaukee next week is going to be kind of interesting. And by the way, Joe, I totally agree with you. I don't think Donald Trump's going to show up, but we'll see whether or not there, you know, there is a

response to this massive reality check from the other candidates, whether Tim Scott actually wants to run for president or wants to run for vice president, because if there's going to be a pivot, it's hard to imagine that it doesn't happen relatively soon. All right. Now to a disturbing situation out of Texas where a woman was arrested and charged with threatening the federal judge presiding over former President Donald Trump's federal election interference case in Washington, D.C. The 43 year old who was denied bail allegedly threatened to kill Judge Tanya Chutkin. And we want to warn you that some of these details are disturbing. According to an affidavit filed last week, the woman recently left a voicemail laden with racial slurs for Chutkin, where she told her, quote, you are in our sights. We want to kill you. It goes on and on and on, targeting you personally and your family, all of it. I don't even want to-

Mika doesn't want to read it. I don't want to highlight this, but the woman is accused of threatening to kill also Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who's also African-American, as well as other Democrats and members of the LGBTQ community. NBC News has reached out to the woman's lawyer for comment, but we have not heard back yet. Joining us now, NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent, Ken Delaney. And Ken, I would think as the indictments rack up now with the Georgia one and Donald Trump having his press conference on Monday and putting out his own opinions as to what's happening to him and naming names in these indictments doesn't,

I would think some would argue this doesn't help the situation in terms of the safety of our judges and juries and other people trying to uphold the law. Of course, Mika, you're absolutely right. And, you know, the day after Judge Tanya Chutkan was named as the judge in this case, reporters noticed that she was accompanied everywhere she went inside the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., by a security detail, which was a new development. And now we know why she needed that security detail. The woman's name who's been charged is Abigail Jo Schry. As you said, she's 43 years old.

She lives in a town south of Houston. And I don't think we should shy away from letting people know exactly how vile the threats made in a phone call to Judge Chutkin's chambers were. The phone call allegedly began with, hey, you stupid slave N-word. And she went on to say, if Trump doesn't get elected in 2024, according to the criminal complaint, we're coming to kill you. So tread lightly, B-word. And she added, you will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of it.

And now it emerged in the hearing. And the reason she was held without bail is because she'd been arrested four times for making threats, other similar kinds of threats to public officials and others. This is a repeat offender, somebody obviously who's not well. But there's a pattern here, right? The FBI just shot to death a man in Utah who had a Trump hat and who was armed and who was engaging in angry rhetoric. The man who attacked Paul Pelosi in his house in San Francisco, engaging in some of the same rhetoric he had seen online. So absolutely, law enforcement officials, deeply, deeply concerned about all of this. And of course, in another development, the names of the grand jurors in Georgia, which are public in that state, were immediately vacuumed up by Trump supporters online, who then doxed them, who published their addresses and other publicly identifying information on fringe

websites, which we're not going to identify because we don't want to spread that. But a deeply worrying development, no doubt for those people and their families. And that's the kind of climate that we are in right now. And it's very, very dangerous. Well, and it's not it's not a climate that that that grows by itself. It's a climate that's been generated by hatred from Donald Trump, from tweet after tweet and our truth after truth. I mean, anyone who doesn't think that also thinks January 6th was just a random act. Well, well, well, exactly. And you look at the hatred toward officials, the FBI. If you're coming after me, I'm coming after you, et cetera.

It goes on and on. Ken Delaney, NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent. Ken, we really appreciate you being with us this morning on what's going to be a long day for you. So we appreciate it. Ken brings up some great points here. There's I think back to I think back to the FBI having to shoot the person in Utah who was making assassination threats and then raised his gun and had his gun raised and his neighbor screamed, hearing him saying, I'm not coming out. I think about, after all, the threats against the FBI, the attack on the FBI office in Ohio. It goes on and on.

They are Donald Trump and some extreme supporters are, you know, they're they're promoting this violence because their words are violent. And again, I could I could list a hundred things that Trump and his supporters have said and have done where they promote, you know, fascist style violence against government officials. I mean, my God, just look, he's not a Trump supporter, but he's learning to play Trump's game. Ron DeSantis, when asked about federal employees, he said on the first day he's going to slit their throats. This is the rhetoric that has taken over in the Republican Party, and we see the consequences of it. And the Republican Party leadership not coming out, denouncing it, and none of the candidates, the top-tier candidates, are really denouncing the violence, the rhetoric, as you point out, slit throat all the way to Donald Trump saying, I'm going to come after you, in the midst of people being arrested and one man shot dead

because he had a weapon at FBI agents and the racial language. I mean, this woman to call a federal office or call a judge's chambers talking about to a slave, using a word that rhymes with the N-word. Donald Trump himself, their leader, using the term riggers, which clearly rhymes with the N-word. I mean, this is not 10 years ago or 30 years ago when we marched against him on the Central Park Fire. I'm talking about he, within the last 24 hours, used the term riggers. Is this the kind of party the Republicans want to show the country that they are?

There's no wonder independents are running away from them. To identify with blatant racism and blatant violence is not the party that we need. And I've never been a Republican, never leaned their way, but we need a two-party system, but we don't need one that prides itself in bigotry. Yeah, and Trump has used, of course, that racist and inflammatory language for so long and only leading into it further as he's dealing with whether it's this judge who is African-American or D.A. Alvin Bragg in Manhattan, a black man. This is something that he is putting central to his defense and his supporters are following their lead. And guys, Joe Mika,

this is something I've been hammering home for months now. I keep talking about how I've been taught state and federal officials so worried about the threat of violence has entered our politics. The Paul Pelosi example was just one of it there. They feel like this has now been normalized because of the Trump era, because of January 6th. And they deeply worry that's going to become more of the norm, that there'll be more threats and more acts of violence as part of the political process as we lead up to the 2024 election. It's deeply, deeply worrisome. Don't disagree with that at all. And still ahead on Morning Joe, an update on the push by former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows to move his charges in the Georgia election case to federal

court. Plus, none of the criminal prosecutions of Donald Trump can keep him from running in 2024. But our next guest argues the former president might already be disqualified. We'll explain why. Also ahead, the latest on wildfire recovery efforts in Hawaii as President Biden plans a trip to the disaster zone in Maui. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Despite what the former president and his allies have said for now more than two and a half years,

and continue to insist to this very hour. The Georgia election was not stolen and I had no right to overturn the election on January 6th. It's a hard truth. My friend Governor Brian Kemp said it well yesterday. He said, quote, for nearly three years, anyone with evidence of fraud has failed to come forward. Republican presidential candidate Mike Pence has repeatedly said that anyone who discounts the Constitution should never be elected again. But our next guest notes that none of Trump's criminal prosecutions, even if he is convicted, can constitutionally stop him from running and winning next year's election. That is unless state officials keep him off the ballot. Here to explain is Washington

Post columnist and NBC News election law analyst Ned Foley. His latest piece is entitled Forget the Trump Trials. He might already be ineligible for 2024. And if you could explain that, I mean, and is this a technical way that he may not be eligible? Like what would it take for this to actually happen with the people do it? Yes. Good morning. Good to be with you. So this provision of the Constitution was adopted after the Civil War to stop people who had been in the United States government who had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, but thenition that they could never serve in federal government again, or in federal or state government again. But it's written broadly to apply not just to the Civil War itself, but to any insurrection or rebellion against the United States. So the issue is whether or not that provision applies to Trump.

And if it does, what procedurally is the way to adjudicate that issue before the election? So, Ned, walk us through that argument. If a state were to pursue this course here against Donald Trump, try to prevent him from appearing on the ballot, what would be the machinations for that to occur? And talk to us about, like, how it would be received in the courts, because certainly Trump would be appealing. Yes. So I think the way it proceeds in the courts is really important. I think we're definitely going to get litigation. There are a couple of private groups that have already said that they are going to pursue this. But there are technical rules of jurisdiction and court procedure that would make it better if this was brought by state officials, say a secretary of state who's in charge of the election procedures for that state.

But in order to make that as clear as possible, a state legislature should set the pathway for that kind of litigation, because under our Constitution, it's state legislatures that have the power to determine presidential elections, the appointment of the presidential electors, and so forth. So to make this as clear and as orderly as possible, it would be good for a state legislature to spell out exactly how the procedure should get into court. Yeah, and what's so fascinating, Ned, is, of course, and we saw last week in an Adam Liptak article in The New York Times that conservative, prominent conservative members of the Federalist Society's professors are making a similar argument. This is from Adam's piece last week. Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group and proponents of originalism. The professors, William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulson of the

University of St. Thomas, studied the question for more than a year. Of course, they have a long article coming out, I guess, in the law review at University of Pennsylvania Law Review next year. Talk about your argument and their argument. Are they similar? Do you do you branch out in certain ways or do you all all agree that you go back and you look at this this post-Civil War statute as a bar for Donald Trump? I essentially agree with their position. But the point that I add in my piece is it matters that this goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. It's not enough for law professors to say this. This has to be decided definitively one way or the other by the United States Supreme Court. There are arguments on both sides. It is a debatable question about exactly how this provision of the Constitution applies to former President Trump.

And so that just needs to be clarified. And it's really important that it be clarified before the election next year so that when voters see their ballots, they know that they can vote for a qualified candidate. The thing I fear the most is that the whole election goes forward and that this then issue arises after the voting and there's an attempt to disqualify him if, for example, he were to win afterwards. Charlie. to win afterwards. Charlie, I guess my main question, though, is is political. I mean, I agree that, you know, Section three of the 14th Amendment does disqualify Donald Trump.

But on a practical level, let's say in my home state of Wisconsin, the there would have been a court ruling saying that Donald Trump should not appear on the ballot. And by a four to three majority, the liberal majority, the Wisconsin Supreme Court says, yes, Wisconsin voters should not even be able to vote for Donald Trump. I mean, I understand the legal merits of that, but I wonder how that plays around the country. And I wonder whether that's one of those things. Be careful what you wish for. If, in fact, you have courts around the country basically saying, yeah, we're not even going to allow voters to vote for Donald Trump. I mean, I agree with the legal argument, but politically, sounds messy to me. I agree 100%. That's why I think it has to come from the United States Supreme Court as the court for the whole nation. And what I think is even worse potentially than the

kind of chaotic different opinions in different courts around the country that you mentioned is if Congress attempted to invoke this provision on January 6th, 2025, after, let's say, hypothetically, Trump has won the electoral college. I think to take this away from the voters after they cast the ballots would be most fraught for peril and the kind of potential violence that you were talking about in an earlier segment on the show. So, you know, there is an argument that Congress could invoke this afterwards under the procedures of the procedures that appropriately took place after the January 6th interaction to improve those procedures doesn't deal with this issue, because this issue goes to the eligibility of a candidate, not the counting of the ballots. NBC News election law analyst Ned Foley, thank you very much for explaining that for us and

coming up. It's fascinating. It is. And what's fascinating, I put the question better. It's how to get it, you know, how do you get there? What's so fascinating is, again, you have members of the Federalist Society. Exactly. You have some of the most conservative jurists, some of the most conservative professors saying the same thing. Yeah. So, yeah, we'll see what that is. Interesting. Yeah. Coming up, President Biden will send a clear message to China and North Korea tomorrow when he hosts the leaders of Japan and South Korea in a key summit at Camp David. We'll have a preview of the expected announcement on military cooperation between the U.S. and its Asian allies. That's next on Morning Joe. The death toll from the devastating Maui wildfires is climbing.

Over 110 people are confirmed dead and more than 1,000 people are still unaccounted for. Only five of the victims have been publicly identified as first responders work to inform families. All were in their 70s or older, while officials warned the death toll is expected to continue to rise. The New York Times reports that as of yesterday afternoon, less than 40 percent of the total burn zone had been searched. You look at this story, Rev, and you just I'm sorry, you just I can't fathom how this happened in 2023, that this town would burn and it would burn out of control and people weren't evacuated in time or there wasn't sufficient water supply. Or you add up all of the excuses by the local officials. None of them make sense. These senior citizens left to burn to death.

And it's still just impossible to comprehend that this would happen in America. No, it's mind boggling how it seems there was no preparation, no structure in place for what we would assume would be an area of preparation for any American city, particularly some something that you get so many tourists to come to as Maui is mind boggling how unprepared they were. And the loss of life of these senior citizens because of it is just mind boggling. President Biden and the first lady will visit the Hawaii wildfire disaster zone on Monday. According to a release from the White House, they will meet with first responders, tour the aftermath of the damage and discuss next steps in the recovery effort. President Biden has been in contact with both the state's governor and head of FEMA

since the wildfires broke out. But before that, the president of South Korea and prime minister of Japan will meet with President Biden at Camp David tomorrow. There, the trio will announce plans to expand defensive cooperation between their nations amid an increase in threats by North Korea and rising tensions with China. It marks an important moment for President Biden, who will host the talks, but also for South Korea and Japan, which only recently

agreed to fully return to an intel sharing pact among their militaries. Tensions between the two countries date back more than 100 years, centering on Japan's brutal occupation of the Korean Peninsula. Let's bring it right out. The president, Meredith, is the Council of Foreign Relations. Richard, obviously, history will look kindly on Joe Biden, what he's done in being first among equals with his NATO partners and helping helping NATO and and helping Europe move forward to expand that that coalition to the strongest it's ever been. But the fact that president after president in this century has been promising to have that Asian pivot, and now we have Joe Biden flexing America's might from Guam to the Philippines, to South Korea, to Japan, to Australia. It's really quite something that he is finally doing what the last four presidents have promised to do. This is a big deal. The hallmark of the Biden foreign policy, you might say we've gone from America first to alliance first. Obviously, the coordination on

behalf of Ukraine and Europe now bringing this together. This is a real quiet success for American diplomacy. As Mika said in the introduction, Japan and South Korea were at serious, serious loggerheads over how to deal with the past. A lot of quiet work is going into this because it's politically so sensitive for the leadership of both countries. But this is a powerful message to China, a powerful message to North Korea, which continues to build up its missile forces and its nuclear forces. And yes, there'll be probably some greater military planning and exercising. It's important to get everybody on the same page for dealing with Taiwan contingencies. I think they'll also deal, Joe, with economic security issues. Hopefully,

they'll coordinate diplomacy. The only issue I take with you slightly is now the real challenge for the administration is to back this up with increased American military presence and capability in this part of the world. So we're setting the diplomatic table really well. We've got to make sure we also have the capabilities to back it up. Well, and Richard, I wanted, let's talk about China. Obviously, this, the flexing of our diplomatic muscles there and military muscles eventually just to protect our allies in the region from China's expansion. That's going to cause complications with China. But let's just talk about the United States strength and China's strength right now. It was not so long ago that everybody was talking about the rise of China was going to eclipse the United States. And right now,

you read a New York Times article two days ago. They say economists have two great fears moving forward. One, the collapse of the Chinese economy or at least the stagnation of it. And the fact that the U.S. economy may grow, may be too strong. It may grow too quickly, rekindle inflation. You combine that with what's happening diplomatically around China right now. And things have changed quite dramatically in that power dynamic between the two superpowers. No argument. For a long time, the whole framing of China was China was 10 feet tall. Look, for 30 years, China was growing at double digits in terms of their GDP increase every year. It was a phenomenal accomplishment for lots of reasons that slowed. More than anything, it's because of Chinese policy. China wants the benefits of a

market economy without having a market economy. And they've put political controls over their economy first. Economic growth is suffering. So, Joe, I think the real question is, what does Xi Jinping do as the Chinese economy stalls, as public discontent grows? Does he stay the course? Does he change course? Or does he try to change the conversation? And that's what links it to the summit at Camp David. If he tries to change the conversation to basically say, I'm going to legitimize my leadership and Chinese leadership no longer with economic growth,

but rather with satisfying Chinese nationalism to put pressure on Taiwan, that's when the United States, Japan and South Korea are going to be tested. So this is what is happening right now. Again, we've been focused on Europe, but a lot of history is beginning to unfold in Asia. And this is the part of the world with the you know, this is where the people are. This is where the wealth is. In many ways, the 21st century is going to be decided here, which again, which is why what's going on at Camp David is so significant. Yeah, Richard, to that point, I was speaking to a senior

administration official yesterday who made a compelling case that this will actually be one of the Biden administration's defining achievements sort of under the radar for now, but will eventually in history be regarded as such. I want to get your take on another piece of that conversation I had with that official who said that one thing that keeps up the leaders in Washington and Tokyo and Seoul up at night is trying to figure out where Xi Jinping goes, not just Taiwan, but the limits, if there are any, to his relationship with Vladimir Putin. Like, at a certain point, does he decide that enough is enough or does he feel like it's in his interest to at least prop Russia up there to keep it as a bulwark to the West for China? What's your sense as the people you talk to as to what they think he may be out of Beijing?

My own guess, Jonathan, based on everyone I talk to, they haven't decided. They have put certain ceilings on their support for Russia. They're providing dual use technology. They don't seem to be providing military equipment. I think the test will come if and when there's some diplomacy that's active. Will China use its leverage with Russia to press Putin to compromise? We don't know the answer to that. But I think that will be a revealing moment.

And I don't know if we're six or 18 months away from that, but that day is going to come. Richard Haass, thank you very much for coming on with your insight this morning. Richard, is there any golf tournaments coming out? No, this is going well. He's wearing green. I'm just wondering, any golf tournaments coming out? Well, you've got the FedEx Cup being played, so that's being happening. But, no, these are the dog days of August.

I'm happy to talk to you about my golf game, Joe. We can go on a great length and destroy the ratings. So here's the deal. I haven't golfed now in, God, how many years, Mika? It's probably been four or five years. And I was not good when I did. But how's your golf game going, Richard, as president emeritus of the CFR. Had a rough few days. Yeah, they've shot an 86 this week. So I'm feeling better, Joe.

The handicaps handicap is still too high, but hopefully it's heading south. What's your handicap? Now it's a 13. But my goal in life, Joe, besides now that I become president, is to get down to single digits. That is my goal in life. I'll let you know. I'll give you progress reports. You know, you just lie about it like Donald Trump.

You know, I was told that Mark Cuban on that Shark Tank show, he was he was talking to some people and he asked one of the people he was about to invest in what they did. And they go, I'm training for a triathlon. And he said, I'm out. And he said, anybody that is training for triathlon is spending too much time worrying about that. Not enough. I always said growing up, I don't say this anymore because I've grown. I've always said, never trust a man with like a handicap in the single digits because he's not going to work hard enough on your team. Okay. But you're, I don't mean that to all you gazillionaires with single digit handicaps.

We're going on a break now. I'm telling Richard. Yeah, I know. You deserve a single handicap. I need to ask another question. So what do you think? Is it your long game? Is it your short game?

What do you need to work another question. So what do you think? Is it your long game? Is it your short game? What do you need to work on, Richard? Long irons, fairway woods. But Joe, the key to getting your handicap down is not what you do. It's what you avoid. You want to avoid any drives out of bounds. You want to avoid three putts. You want to avoid double bogeys. If you can do that, you will have a single digit handicap.

So can I ask you this question, Richard? Because I'm old school. And so I haven't played since everybody started using these little woods for their long irons. I believe if you're going to hit a two or three iron, you hit a two or three iron. But they're all these hybrids. Are they called hybrids? Do you use the hybrids or are you old school? I actually like long irons, actually.

I feel a little bit more comfortable hitting a three iron or a four iron. When you have a club in your hand, Richard, I'm curious, is there a certain club you have in your hand that you feel most comfortable with? You know, because so much of golf is in your head. You pick up, like, for instance, if I pick up a four iron or a seven iron when I'm playing, I don't even think. I feel comfortable with it. Not so with, say, a five iron for some reason.

What about you, Richard? What's your go-to club? Six iron, Joe. When in trouble, six iron. Okay, Richard Haas, thank you. You need to zip it. You just blew through a commercial break for two minutes of stupidity that nobody needed. That's not true. I think a lot of people are interested in this.

It's now the top of the hour. Can I ask you this, Richard? No, you can't. Do you use a driver? I got one more question. Jonathan Lemire and Reverend Al Sharpton are still with us. And joining the conversation, we have former U.S. Senator, now an NBC News and MSNBC political analyst Claire McCaskill. Hi, Claire.

And the host of the podcast On Brand with Donnie Deutsch. Donnie Deutsch. Donnie, I will be nice, but you do not goad Joe right now. OK, we're going to get to our top story. Have you ever gone? No. Joe, so when you said. Oh, good.

His sound doesn't work. All right. So you can't hear him. Thank God. Seriously His sound doesn't work. All right. Let's go. Explain that. So you can't hear him. Thank God. Seriously, what are you using? All right. What are you using?

A paper cup, Donnie? Yeah. Can we fix that? That was mine. We did that. Thank you, Dan. Can I ask Claire? Because you're always interrupting me and it hurts me.

Claire, do you ever play golf? Have you ever played golf before? I've never had time to play golf. Thank you. There you go. Don't you look at that game player and go, really? Like you have the time to hit that little ball and then walk all the way to it and then hit it again, trying to get it into a hole. I don't get golf. I don't get the time it takes to play golf. It is, it's, it's makes no sense to me at all. I sit, I literally, I watch it in awe of who would have the patience to play that sport. Claire, your response, please. Well, listen, I have a lot of people I love that love golf so i'd say it must be

it must be addictive in some ways but in my career with children and a full-time job the idea that i would take three or four hours out of a weekend to walk around no No. You know, I take my kids on a walk. That's right. So I never took the time to learn it or to play it because it is very, very time consuming. Well, I will say with like, you know, four kids, four hours of TV, it is, I just don't have the time right now. You can't do it, no.

I am curious though, Jonathan O'Meara. Everybody's talking about this pickleball thing, and I've never played pickleball, but everybody's talking about it. My friend Jackie loves it. Pickleball. Like, do you play pickleball? She has a pickleball court. Is this a thing now that everybody should do because you can do it quickly

and you don't have to run around a lot? Yeah, I mean, that's the appeal. First of all, I don't golf. A little mini golf with the kids, that's it. Pickleball, I've played just once or twice. The windmills, I can get through those. It's the ones that you put up on the hill, but if you miss it, it goes back down the hill. That's a six for me every time.

It's heartbreaking. But pickleball is a phenomenon right now. Some think a plague. There have been some pretty amusing stories written about how neighborhoods, people have complained because they think pickleball is too loud and therefore it's driving property values down. They can't relax because of the thwacking of the ball. I mean, it's tennis, but less exercise.

I think it's fun. Joe, as you know, I do play some ping pong, But I'd like to play some pickleball and tennis again. Don't say that about him. Not very good. Jonathan O'Meara and I had a best of seven series last year. He was like the New York Yankees. He went up 3-0. Wopped out of a rematch.

And then he let me win. Wait a minute. Those are harmful words, Joe. You just compared me to the Yankees. We have wasted so much time rematch. Wait a minute. He's very nice of you. Those are hurtful words, Joey. Just compare me to the other guys. We have wasted so much time. No, we haven't. People, I think people care deeply about our pickleball and ping pong habits.