Morning Joe - Morning Joe 8/27/24

Episode Date: August 27, 2024

Harris and Trump campaigns fight over muted debate mics

We agreed to the same rules. I don't know. It doesn't matter to me. I'd rather have it probably on. But the agreement was that it would be the same as it was last time. In that case, it was muted. I didn't like it the last time, but it worked out fine. Ask Biden how it worked out. It was fine. And I think it should be the same. We agreed to the same rules, same rules and same specifications. And I think that's probably what it should be. But they're trying to change it. The truth is they're trying to get out of it because she doesn't want to debate. She's not a good debater. She's not a smart person. She doesn't want to debate. So I think this issue is resolved unless Donald Trump allows his handlers to overrule him. We'll have a fulsome debate between the two candidates with live microphones where both candidates

will be able to lay out their vision for where they want to take this country. Do you still plan to participate in the ABC debate? Well, you know, I watched this weekend and it's the worst of all networks. When I looked at the hostility of that, I said, why am I doing it? Let's do it with another network. I want to do it. So we're thinking about it. We're thinking about it. They also want to change the rules. You know, the deal was we keep the same rules.

Now all of a sudden they want to make a change in the rules because she can't answer questions. Why not debate her? Well, wait. But because they already know everything. They say, oh, Trump's, you know, not doing the debate. It's the same thing they say now. I mean, right now I say, why should I do a debate? I'm leading in the polls. And everybody knows her. Everybody knows me. But when I looked at the hostility of that, I said, why am I doing it? Let's do it with another. Yes, that's a chicken noise. The

Harris campaign trolling the Trump campaign over the rules for their presidential debate. The Harris team now wants the microphones to be live all the time, which would be different from June's debate between President Biden and Donald Trump. Trump's campaign now saying it wants the same rules as that Atlanta debate, though you just heard the former president say of the mics that he'd rather have it probably on. And that's where we begin this morning. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Tuesday, August 27th. I'm Jonathan Lemire, along with U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kaye. We're in this morning for Joe, Mika and Willie,

and we're pleased to say joining us, we have Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson. President emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. He is author of the weekly newsletter, Home and Away, available on Substack. We also have with us Richard Haass's new beard. And NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent, Ali Vitale, joins us as well. So, Cady, this is where we are, a debate over a debate. And let's remember the Trump team for a while was upset with the current plan. September 10th on ABC, Trump proposed there'd be debates on other networks, including Fox. He wanted multiple debates. There were some from the Trump team

that was suggested that Joe Biden still had to debate, suggesting, well, that was the original agreement. Of course, it was not. It was simply the Republican nominee versus the Democratic nominee. And now there's this back and forth over microphones. And the Harris team is looking to change how things are done now compared to where they were in June. What do we think? Are we going to see these two square off in a couple of weeks in Philadelphia? I don't know. It's 6.03 in the morning and we've had a chicken and a beard already made it on the program. It's an entertaining day. It's one of those days.

Listen, how much of this is brinkmanship? How much of this is the Trump campaign trying to get what they want and therefore suggesting that maybe, possibly, maybe not, they might actually pull out of the debate? And therefore they can perhaps get the terms as they want them and get those microphones kept off. It seemed to work better for Donald Trump, or maybe that was just the fact that Joe Biden was in such a bad way that that seemed to work better for Donald Trump. At this point, knowing it's almost impossible to judge from Trump's own language what he wants, except that you can tell there's clearly some disquiet in the Trump team about this debate, whether it's about the rules or about the debate happening at all. And yet the Harris team is prepping, as we know, at the moment.

And they seem to want to go ahead with the debate. Ali, if you had to put your vast savings somewhere, is this debate happening and what are the rules going to be? I would put it nowhere near this contest. On the chicken sound. I will put it on the chicken sound. the rules going to be? I would put it nowhere near this contest. No, look, I think. On the chicken sound. I will put it on the chicken sound. That is going to be a good investment. But I think we were always going to have a debate about the debate because Trump is so

unhappy and unsettled around the idea that Joe Biden is no longer his opponent. But I think the debate has to happen in large part because the onus is on Trump to prove that he has what it takes to go forward as the nominee for the Republican Party and to prove that he has the credentials, the acuity, the mental capacity, and to overcome the age questions that Joe Biden himself had to overcome and ultimately did not in that last debate. Shying away from this over some rules thing about mics being on or off, that is something that the Harris Walls campaign can run with and say that Trump is too scared to debate. That will only incense him

more. The fact that they want the mics on, though, does speak to the strategy that they might be trying to employ, this idea that she thinks, and there might be some truth to this, that if you just continue to poke at him, he will eventually erupt on a hot mic or not and show the kind of anger that he can present that won't look presidential. Not that that stopped people from voting for him before, but that is certainly one of the strategies. And, Jean, we should remember it was it was the Biden team last time around that asked to have the microphones turned off. They felt that that would be to their advantage. They felt that it would give them a more effective debate compared to that disastrous one back in 2020. What's the benefit to Donald Trump of doing a debate with Kamala

Harris at this stage? I mean, I know if he pulls out, he's going to be called a coward. But actually, from his point of view, would that be preferable than going into a debate with somebody who is a seasoned prosecutor and is performing so well as a candidate as she is at the moment? Well, he may have some trepidation about that, but I think he I think he believes and I think his team believes he needs to have this debate. Let's be clear. The Harris campaign is trying to change the rules. Right. I mean, three weeks to three weeks ago, they were saying, no, we're going to stick with the rules that were agreed, you know, for the for the Biden debate. It's going to be September 10th. It's going to be ABC, the same rules.

And now they're saying, well, but we want to change this rule. They're doing that because they can't. Because at this point, it it looks to me as if Donald Trump believes he needs this debate more than Kamala Harris does. She has had the momentum. She has caught up and in most polls passed him in the national polls. She's looking much better in the swing state polls. And she's been in the news. And she had better television ratings for her convention than he did.

That's probably the thing that's driving him craziest. So I think that Harris' campaign is kind of messing with Trump and his campaign at this point by making this demand. I think in the end there will be a debate. I think Harris is confident of of her ability to win a debate. And I think Trump feels he needs it. Yeah. And this is the latest example of that classic genre where the Trump campaign says one thing and almost immediately Trump gets in front of a camera and completely undermines it, which we have now seen almost for a decade. You know, it also, Richard, you know, to the points just made.

I mean, at the moment, this race is very, very close. But Harris has momentum. Trump probably feels like he's losing a little bit. The people who's behind, the candidate behind the poll is usually the one who wants to debate, thinking they can change the narrative. I also think that it's clear that part of the Harris team's strategy is promoting Donald Trump's ability to talk. Let's remember last week when he gave one of his news conferences, it was in Bedminster,

New Jersey. The Harris campaign was advertising it like tune in, watch Donald Trump, because they think the more he talks, the more Americans will see this man as just simply not qualified, not fit to go back to office. And we also know that Harris has had both in the Senate and other debates kind of viral moments where she has like, you know, the I'm speaking like that's that's their cell T-shirts with that on. That's one of her things when someone tries to interrupt her. How do you see this playing out? You know, I think Trump needs the debate, but there is way for Harris to really solidify her hold on this race, too. Yeah, look, I think it's risky for Donald Trump to debate. It's also risky for him not. It's a real chance to make your points. And look, he wants to say this about

certain issues, about immigration. Just yesterday, he was talking about the Afghanistan debacle, despite his own role in it. But anyhow, trying to put Kamala Harris on the defensive, on food prices. So he has reasons to want the debate. Look, I think Gene has it about right. Traditionally, the person who is not winning sees it as a useful sort of thing. I don't think, though, either right now can be confident that without the debate, they've got this in the bag, not even close. So I actually think both sides in their own way kind of want the debate

because there's a chance to put the points on the board. So my sense is both sides will want it. I think, you know, if I were advising the Harris campaign, which on that I would say, don't get hung up over the ground rules. If you think you're going to win the debate, then have the debate. At the end of the day, Jonathan, if this is an election about Donald Trump, he's going to lose. And if it's a referendum on him. And so that's the opportunity for the Harris campaign essentially to use this. The debate over the debate. We reckon this will continue right up until about what, September the 9th or something. OK, more than 200 Republicans who worked for three of the most recent GOP nominees prior to former President Trump, are now endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris. Yes, the Democrat. In a letter, the 238 Republicans, which includes staffers from former President George W. Bush's White House

and Senators John McCain and Mitt Romney's presidential campaigns, urge more moderate Republicans and independents to, quote, take a brave stand once more. The group builds on a smaller set of about 150 Republicans who pledged to support then candidate Biden back in 2020. And it comes after a Democratic convention that included conservatives like former Congressman Adam Kinzinger speaking to common values that transcend party. The letter further states, quote, of course, we have plenty of honest ideological disagreements with Vice President Harris and Governor Walz. That's to be expected.

The alternative, however, is simply untenable. At home, another four years of Donald Trump's chaotic leadership, this time focused on advancing the dangerous goals of Project 2025 will hurt real everyday people and waken our sacred institutions. Richard, which are the Republicans who have not stood up yet, who served in the Trump administration, who could actually make a difference in terms of persuading those very few unpersuadable voters who are left? And, you know, do you expect any more of them to stand up between now and November? I mean, there's the former vice president who has, shall we say, a certain physical and political incentive to stand up, given how he was. Do you think he's going to do it? No. Look, I think if people were going to stand up, they've had now, shall we say, several years to do it.

So I think several, you know, several people is simply not. I also wonder at this point, you know, disagree with me, if you will, how much of a difference it would make. It's certainly not going to shake Trump's base. I'm not sure a lot of these people would necessarily influence the independents or you know, a sort of small number of voters in in in swing states. So it'll be interesting to see. I just find it. You know, it's fascinating how many of the people who work with them most closely, who know them best, have come out against them. And that's that to me is a stunning indictment. Yeah. I mean, no questions. Those who have known him the best have decided not to back him, Eugene.

But there's Adam Kinzinger, Republican, spoke at the Democratic Convention last week, gave a good speech. And Tim Miller, our friend from MSNBC in the Bulwark, noted, though, he applauded him. But like, where were the rest? We know that some of these have have spoken out against him privately. But where was John Kelly? Where was Rex Tillerson? Where was Mike Pence? Where was George W. Bush? Where was Liz Cheney? The list goes on and on. People who have privately and sometimes publicly

made it clear that they disagree with Donald Trump, they would never vote for him again. But there's always been something holding them back to take that center stage, whether it's political ambition or the like, to actually forcefully not just denounce Trump, but back Harris. Do you see any of that changing? And to Richard's point, does it even matter? I don't see it changing. I mean, if if if every prominent Republican who

who inwardly, secretly despises Donald Trump and thinks he's dangerous for the country and the world were to had spoken at the Democratic Convention, there wouldn't have been any room for Democrats to speak. It's not like there's a shortage of these people. But it's very clear at this point, after years, that many of them are not going to come out. They're going to remain in exile or in the closet, I guess. And I don't, does it make a difference that this group came out? I think just very marginally. I think in so far as they're trying to create a permission structure for establishment Republican voters who are, who really don't want to vote for either Trump or Harris

to just go ahead and vote for Harris. I don't think they're necessarily a lot of people who are going to be pushed off that fence to actually voting for Harris. But, you know, a tight election and so small numbers can make a big difference. But, you know, you know what, Patty, I think there's two ways that I've seen Republicans in this Trump era go at the former president while also trying to preserve republicanism in calls out as the permission structure to patriotically maintain your time as a conservative, but vote for small d democracy by voting for Kamala Harris. And then you've got people like Mike Pence, like Liz Cheney, some of the other names that we've mentioned here who are never going to come out and disavow their party in large part because they want to stay within it so that they can carry the future torch of it when Trump, if Trump is at the end of his political career, whether that's in 2024, at some point in the future. There are two different ways that they're trying to go about this. And so I don't think we're going to see Mike Pence or Liz Cheney come out and endorse

the Democrats and say, I am no longer a Republican. They want to stay within the party for a reason. They want to carry that torch forward. Yeah, the voice I would like to hear is George W. Bush. I think you're right. And I do think that is a voice that actually could make some sort of a difference. I don't know that any of the others could, but it's possible that George W. Bush could do.

Okay, so let's turn overseas. Russia has launched what is being described as its biggest attack on Ukraine in weeks. NBC News correspondent Erin McLaughlin has the latest for us. In Kiev, a Russian missile strikes near a critical dam, stunning Ukrainian soldiers. Part of Russia's latest attempt, the Ukrainian president says, to terrify. Russia launched more than 120 missiles and 100 drones, he says, killing at least four and damaging civilian infrastructure, triggering rolling blackouts in the capital and sparking international condemnation. We condemn in the strongest possible terms Russia's continued war against Ukraine and its efforts to plunge the Ukrainian people into darkness.

The attack, days after Ukraine marked its independence with a somber ceremony in the capital. Our team woke to the sound of explosions and took shelter, as did millions of other Ukrainians. Metro stations once again doubled as safe havens. Yet within hours, life returned to normal as the fighting rages on and Ukrainian commanders braced for a long war. We fight for our free freedom. Two years ago, we met Colonel Igor Obolensky, shortly after his men pushed the Russians out of the area around Kharkiv. Since then, he fought in the battle for Bakhmut, one of the bloodiest of the war. The last time we met, you told me something that stuck with me,

that you were fighting for your little boy. Yeah. So that he didn't have to. Yeah. When your son becomes a man, do you think this war will still be going? Maybe, yeah. But it's not a very active phase, but I think, yeah, it will be. That was NBC's Aaron McLaughlin with that report.

Meanwhile, negotiations continue in Cairo this week for a ceasefire and hostage release deal in Gaza. According to White House National Security Spokesperson John Kirby, discussions will continue for the next few days. One issue to be tackled includes how many hostages may be exchanged, their identities, and the pace of their potential release. This comes after an intense exchange between Israel and Hezbollah this weekend that stoked fears of a wider regional war. The Washington Post, citing officials and analysts, reports the exchange was a face-saving moment for both sides, allowing them to step back

from the edge of a wider conflict, letting Hezbollah claim vengeance and Israel to project confidence in its security apparatus. Now, Richard, your recent piece in the new issue of Foreign Affairs bears the headline, The Trouble with Allies, America Needs a Playbook for Difficult Friends. You write that the tensions with Israel over the past year are merely one example of a persistent but underappreciated predicament of U.S. foreign policy, how to manage disagreements with friends and allies. So Richard, let's get you a little further on this. This obviously, since basically October 8th, there have been disagreements between the Biden White House and Prime Minister Netanyahu. We have had Biden officials on record saying they believe that at times Netanyahu

makes decisions in his own political interest rather than trying to bring a conclusion to the war or bring those hostages home. Tell us more about this predicament and what can be done about it? Yeah, it's a recurring one. It goes back essentially as long as we've had alliances, you know, disagreements with the allies during World War II, with Britain and France and Israel over the Suez Affair in 1956. You just go through it. Every decade, there's these things. We just showed Ukraine and we showed Israel. Okay, so with Ukraine, should Ukraine have told us about this incursion? They now want, before they did it, they did not. Going forward, they want more arms.

And the answer is maybe, but under what strategy? Why don't the United States and Ukraine sit down and we say, okay, we would give you more arms, but here are the understandings about what's our definition of success? What are we trying to achieve here? With Israel, as you point out, we supported Israel's right to defend itself after October 7th, but we've come a long ways from that. A lot of what Israel has done in Gaza is arguably counterproductive. Yet the United States has kind of given Israel advice. Israel's rejected the advice. And for the most part, we've lived with that. And the question is, should we do more? Should we have done more independently to support our own policy, to push Israel harder on putting together a plan for after in Gaza? We've looked the other way

for decades as Israel has built settlements. Why has the United States done that? What settlements do is essentially take off the pot, the table, the possibility of having a Palestinian state and a two state solution. Why are we simply looking the other way? Why don't we have a stronger policy there? So what I'm arguing is we need to be more independent. And if our allies aren't going to take our interests into account sufficiently, and often they don't, if we simply disagree, why don't we press our views harder? So is there a scenario where you could see this White House, the Biden White House, doing exactly that, insisting to Ukraine that you need to read us in as to where you're going next,

especially if there are incursions into Russia? And more importantly, insisting to Netanyahu that some of those conditions you just outlined actually happen. Is that something you could see Biden putting forth? Maybe it's even after the election, after the vice president has had her day at the mailbox? It's late in the day and it'd probably be too easy for the other government to simply wait him out. After the election, you've got 75 days left of the Biden presidency. If it were going to happen, I think it should have happened months ago. But I think it'll be a challenge for whosoever the 47th president. We have got allies, in particular Israel. Look at, you got questions what they do about Iran. Do we want Israel to attack Iran or not? What do we want Israel to do with Hezbollah?

What about Gaza? What about the West Bank and so forth and settlements. Ukraine. Do we want Ukraine to try to liberate Crimea militarily? Do we want Ukraine to pursue diplomacy? So I think whosoever the 47th president, Jonathan, is going to have some big, big issues with allies. Also Taiwan. What do we want Taiwan to do vis-a-vis China? So I actually think this is going to come front and center, probably too late for Joe Biden's presidency, but I don't think it's too late for whoever comes next. Richard, if so, if Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas became like different people tomorrow, right, and decided, OK, yeah, time for a Palestinian state. Is there enough left for a Palestinian state? When I look at the map, it just looks like worse than Swiss cheese, what the Israelis would be theoretically leaving to the Palestinians, given the settlements

and the roads connecting the settlements and the way that Palestinians can't even move around the West Bank, let alone between the West Bank and Gaza. What's your view on that? Look, Gene, what you suggest is true. Whatever you have to work with now, it's incomparably less than what you had to work with a decade ago, two decades, three. In the past, when Israel has given up territory vis-a-vis Egypt, say, or you had the evacuation of certain settlements, you have the same thing in Gaza when Israel left Gaza. So I think there would have to be territorial adjustments. There would have to be compensation for certain stray settlements.

I think the concentrated settlement blocks would remain, and then you'd have territorial compensation for it. All of which is to say, I don't think it's too late for diplomacy. But go back to your first point. You would need different people. In order to have any negotiation succeed, you need leadership on both sides that one is willing and two able to make peace, has the disposition as well as the political strength. You don't have that. The reason you ultimately had a transition between Israel and Egypt, you had Sadat and

Begin. They were willing and able to do it. And in South Africa, you had Mandela and de Klerk, willing and able to deal with the end of apartheid. You do not have leadership between Israel and either Hamas or the Palestinian Authority that's both willing and able. So U.S. diplomats, I don't care how hard they how often they get on a shuttle. They simply don't have the counterparts to deal with here. And the ceasefire talks continue in Cairo. U.S. officials late last night pushing back against reports that they had hit an impasse, but acknowledge gaps still remain.

We, of course, will bring you the latest developments. Still ahead on Morning Joe, the Department of Justice is pushing to revive the classified documents case against Donald Trump. What special counsel Jack Smith's team is arguing in a new filing. Plus, Democrats in Battleground, Georgia are suing the state over controversial new election rules. We'll take a look at that legal challenge and why it's so significant ahead of November. And also ahead, former national security advisor H.R. McMaster is the latest Trump

administration official to come out with a new inside account of his time working for the former president. He joins the conversation ahead here on Morning Joe. We'll be back in just 90 seconds. The bipartisan Congressional Task Force investigating the attempted assassination of former President Trump toured the location of the shooting yesterday. The group walked the grounds of the rally site and climbed up onto the roof where the shooter was. The tour was led by Task Force Chairman Congressman Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania and Ranking Member Jason Crow of Colorado. Crow, a veteran of the wars in Iraq

and Afghanistan, said this of the gunman's location. Before Congress, I was an army ranger. I served in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one of the fundamental principles you operate is you always secure the high ground or you have eyes on the high ground. So I definitely took note today that there were a lot of lines of sight that appear to have been unsecured that day that didn't have eyes on or that weren't secured. And certainly at this point, a lot more questions than answers. Ali, with every single detail that comes out of this investigation, it just looks worse and worse for the Secret Service. It looks worse and worse for the Secret Service. And I imagine we're going to continue seeing congressional committees press the Secret Service on what their investigation continues to yield. Because you'll

remember the first time we saw Kimberly Cheadle. Now, of course, she is no longer the head of the Secret Service. But the first time we saw her testify on Capitol Hill, a lot of the answers she gave lawmakers were an investigation is ongoing. I don't want to get too much into it. Now the new director is going to have to answer all of those same questions. And he does not have the benefit of minimal time that she had. More time has elapsed. There are only more questions. We're now going to see this as one of the key things that Congress has left to do on its to-do list for this year. They're going to, of course, have to do government funding when they come back to town in September. But beyond that, this task force and potentially another rival task force,

mostly of Trump allies in an unofficial capacity. They are still doing their investigation. But this task force of Jason Crow and Mike Kelly and others has subpoena power and they will be bipartisan support and has real bipartisan support. We've definitely seen it's not just the Republicans and Democrats that are actually on the task force. I think everyone has pretty widespread concern, in large part because we have only seen political violence threats ratchet up over the last five years. That's a concern for every lawmaker, regardless of their party. Yeah. I mean, John, if you're in the Harris campaign, of course, you want that answer, too. So the Democrats definitely want answers from this investigation as well. Special Counsel Jack Smith's office has asked an appeals court to

restore the classified documents case against former President Trump. U.S. District Judge Eileen Cannon dismissed the indictment last month, claiming Smith's appointment as special counsel violated the Constitution. Council's office argues Attorney General Merrick Garland had clear authority to appoint Smith to lead that prosecution and that Cannon ignored decades of precedent when she decided to toss out the case. Trump has been charged with 40 felony counts pertaining to allegations that he willfully retained national defense information at his Palm Beach estate after he left office. He has pleaded not guilty. So let's see where that one goes. But clearly, Jack Smith pushing back at those attempts to get this case effectively pushed down the road as long as possible. Yeah, not abandoning the hopes, even if slim, to bring this in the next few months, deciding not to do the mini trial,

that presentation of evidence that we've heard from legal experts that would sort of put everything in the public domain ahead of Election Day, even if the trial were not. It's certainly still a long shot. And again, this is one of those cases where both of these cases, this one, January 6th, as well as the classified documents federal case that totally hinge upon the result of this election, that if Donald Trump were to win, he can easily advise his attorney general to make them go away. Were Vice President Harris to win, then we would assume they would be revived in some point down the road. So, of course, a lot riding on this election for Donald Trump's personal liberty among as well as his political future. And speaking of politics, the Democratic Party of Georgia, the DNC and a group of voters are suing the Georgia State Election Board. The new lawsuit has the backing of the Harris-Walls campaign and focuses on two newly enacted election rules passed this month. The new measures passed just months before Election

Day allow a county board member to conduct a, quote, reasonable inquiry into election results before they are certified. But the election board does not provide a definition on what is considered reasonable, meaning that any member can theoretically block the certification of an election for any reason they deem fit. Also yesterday, a group including Democratic lawmakers called on Georgia Governor Brian Kemp to remove three Republican members of the state's election board. The group says the members acted illegally when they voted to approve the new election results because the vote was outside of their authority. Kemp's office has confirmed that he reached out to the state attorney general for guidance on whether he even has the power to remove the members.

The three board members in question are the same three that were praised by name by Donald Trump at his rally in Atlanta earlier this month. Now we have two things we have to do. We have to vote and we have to make sure that we stop them from cheating because they cheat like dogs. I don't know if you've heard, but the Georgia State Election Board is in a very positive way. This is a very positive thing, Marjorie. They're on fire. They're doing a great job. Johnis Johnson, Rick Jeffries and Janelle King, three people are all pit bulls fighting for honesty, transparency and victory. They're fighting. Trump shouting out Marjorie Taylor Greene there.

And those same three board members were also responsible for stripping Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger of his power to chair the elections board. Raffensperger, who rejected Trump's efforts to overturn Georgia's election in 2020, is, again, openly critical of the new election rules changes. So, Eugene Robinson, weigh in here. This seems to be a pretty precarious and even dangerous situation and perhaps foreshadowing intense, intense legal fights on Election Day and beyond that could once more imperil this country's ability to process a fair and free election. Yeah, this could be a real mess if any county board member can object to certification of election results.

You have to assume that some MAGA members will object if Donald Trump loses. So, you know, in a crucial swing state. Now, I guess I will point out that as this now enters the courts, the challenge to this change in the election rules. This Supreme Court, despite its ideological makeup, has been very skeptical of election rule changes this close to an election. That's kind of a principle they've tried to hew to. So if it were to get up to them, you know, intact, I think there would be a pretty good chance that it might be this change might be blocked. But who knows where it will be left by the time we get to Election Day. And that's that's a real danger.

Yeah, a real danger. And we will have to see if it's repeated, perhaps in other states as well. Similar scenarios coming up next on Morning Joe. A Trump campaign spokesman says the book written by our next guest, quote, belongs in the bargain bin of the fiction section. Former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster joins us live in studio to respond to that criticism of his revealing new account of the Donald Trump White House. Morning Joe will be right back with that. A shot of the White House, 638, 639 now, a.m. in the morning there in Washington. And former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster is out with a sobering assessment of his time serving in the Trump White House, offering a staunch condemnation of his former boss. In his new book, which bears the title, At War With Ourselves, My Tour of Duty in the Trump White House, McMaster depicts the current Republican presidential nominee as an insecure personality whose need for flattery and approval made him an easy target of

foreign adversaries bent on weakening the United States. McMaster served as Trump's national security advisor for 13 months until he was fired in 2018. And retired Army and Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster joins us now. Thank you for being here, sir. Congrats on the book. Let's start with simply what we said before the break. The Trump campaign has pushed back on this. They said the book should be assigned to the bargain bin of fiction, suggesting that nothing in it there is worth paying attention to. But talk to us about what we can find in this book, your day to day experiences in his White House. Sure. Well, hey, I think it's a missed opportunity for the Trump campaign because there's a lot positive about President Trump in here, especially about his disruptive nature. And my observation is,

having been on the receiving end of a lot of policies and strategies developed in Washington, made no sense to me overseas when I was serving in Kabul and in Baghdad. And Trump disrupted a lot of what needed to be disruptive. But the story in the book is also about how he's so disruptive that he disrupts himself and he becomes the antagonist in his own story. So this is not, you know, this is not a warning about President Trump. This is informing readers about the president's character and personality, how that interacts with the real challenges that we faced, all of which are live issues today, you know, from the competition with China and Russia, Iran's aggression and use of, you know, use of this axis of of aggressors in the Middle East and and the threat from North Korea. I mean, you can go on Venezuela, all of the issues that we're confronting today.

We confronted in that first year of the Trump administration. And this is mainly a story about how I was trying to help a disruptive president disrupt what needed to be disrupted. So one of the themes in the book is how Trump's inexperience and hubris and susceptibility to flattery, in your estimation, really weakened U.S. national security or their position on the world stage, and no more so than with Vladimir Putin, president of Russia. As you saw it up close, what do you think that was? Can you explain the nature of that relationship? Yeah, I mean, this is something I really tried hard to explain in the book. I say, at one point I came home and I said to my wife, hey, I can't figure this out. But here's how I see it. I see that in some ways there's a lot of continuity between George W.

Bush and his initial approach to Putin and Barack Obama and his initial approach to Putin. Both of them were very hopeful that, hey, I'm the one. I'm the one who can establish a better relationship. I can convince him that, hey, his future is with the West. It's with Europe. And maybe ameliorate his behavior and so forth. Trump was under that same delusion. He thought, because he has great confidence in his own ability to make a big deal with somebody. And what I tell the story in the book about is that I would tell him, hey, this is the best liar in the world, right? He has aspirations. He has objectives in mind that go far beyond anything in relation to us. And so we can't try to placate Putin. The only thing that Putin respects is strength. And so one of the only thing that Putin respects is strength, you know. And and so

one of the one of the chapter titles here is his weakness is provocative. And one of the stories in that chapter is my interaction with President Trump, showing him on a big chart that I put in front of him in the back room of the of the Oval Office in the little dining room there. And on the bottom of it were world events, U.S. actions that portrayed a sense of weakness or irresolution. And on the top of it, just following that, was an act of Russian aggression, whether it was denial of service cyber attacks against Estonia in 2007, or the invasion of Georgia in 2008, or the first invasion of Ukraine in 2014. And the point I was making is, Mr. President, don't trade off something for Putin to hope

that you can have a better relationship. Act with strength. And that's when he authorized the sale and provision of Javelin weapon systems to the Ukrainians. So a lot of the book is a story of, hey, what was it like? What was it like to serve in the Trump White House? And it was really our team's aid to Ukraine because he held it back. You have seen his comments about Kim Jong-un. You have seen his continued flattery about Vladimir Putin. You saw January 6th. So putting this all together, it's not just that Donald Trump was president. He's trying to be president again. Do you really think that America's national security interests would be served by another Donald Trump term?

Well, I think that's for every voter to decide. But what do you think? What you're saying, Jonathan, what I'm saying is, you know, how do you strike the balance, right, between somebody who does disrupt, you know, some of the policies in Washington, and I think a lot of people would agree that there's a lot of Washington that needs to be disrupted, but also be cognizant of the inconsistency of the president.

You mentioned a number of examples. One of the other examples in the book is how I think President Trump put into place for the first time a really reasoned and sustainable approach to Afghanistan, but then abandoned that, right, and entered into negotiations with the Taliban without the Afghan government present. He recreated, I think, a lot of the same problems of the Obama administration, the approach to Afghanistan. So, hey, I think, Jonathan, that's for you and Richard, every individual voter to say, OK, based on what you learn in this book, you know,

you make your own decision. I'm not here to as a washed up general, you know, to tell people how to vote. Well, let me ask about one individual voter. You. Yeah. You have said you wouldn't serve in a Trump term. Are you going to vote for him? Well, you know, going to answer that question, John. And I tell the story in the book, right? I took the oath of service at age 17 on the plane at West Point. And I followed George Marshall's example, who had been one of my heroes. I'd read youth biographies of him and everything. And I think it's really important to have a bold line between the military, even retired military, and partisan politics, not politics in terms of political competitions and diplomacy and national security affairs. But I don't think any American needs an old general to tell them how to vote. So somebody, my editor actually, who's a great guy, he said, this book needs to be a warning. I'm like, no,

I want this book to inform, not to warn. That's the purpose of the book. Hey, Chuck, can you tell us about a time when President Trump felt really strongly about an issue? You said, Mr. President, here's why I don't think you got it quite right. I think you ought to think X, not Y. And he said, good point. I'll change my mind. Do you have examples where he's open to doing that? Yeah, there are many examples in the book of exactly that, you know. And so I think it's sometimes people took kind of the wrong approach with Donald Trump. Right. So I think there are three types of people, Richard, you can confirm or deny this, right, in any administration. There are people who are there to serve the elected president to recognize, hey, this is the president who got elected. And what I what my duty is to give that president best analysis, give that president multiple options,

and let him or her decide what the course of action is. There's a second group of people, they're not there to give the president multiple options. They're there to manipulate decisions based on their own agenda, right? And then there's a third group of people who think it's their job to protect the country and maybe the world from the president. The problem with the second and third groups is, hey, nobody elected them. And if in our country, sovereignty lies with the people, they're actually undermining the Constitution, right, because they're unaccountable appointed officials. So I saw it as my job to be and this is one of the chapter titles in here, the guardian of of Trump's independence of judgment. And I think

we were effective, you know, for a time I got used up, you know, I only lasted 13 months there, you know, but, you know, it was effective to give him multiple options and to start with, hey, Mr. President, I think this is your preferred course of action. But if these are our goals and objectives, and we always would have a discussion first, hey, what is it we're trying to achieve? Maybe we should consider something else. And then he would evolve his thinking over time. You have an unbelievably distinguished military background. Did you have serious conversations with him about the use of the American military on U.S. soil? Did you ever sit down with him and talk about the Insurrection Act and the cost of potentially using the U.S.

military at home? You know, I didn't. I was gone by that time. But Richard, by the costs of potentially using the U.S. military at home? You know, I didn't. I was gone by that time. But Richard, by the time of all the, you know, the George Floyd's murder, the violent aftermath of that, all of that. So I did make a few phone calls. And, you know, I think at times, like everything else, right, the title is at war with ourselves because we are at war with ourselves. And one of the themes is, hey, that's not only bad for our psyche, right? It's bad for governance. And it's bad for our confidence in who we are as a people and confidence, as you were talking in the earlier segment, in our democratic institutions and processes.

So I think what I hope the book does is help us realize, hey, we all have a stake in arresting these centripetal forces that are just tearing us apart from each other. I tell a lot of stories in here about how Trump says things that are inflammatory, says things that are disrespectful, offensive. But oftentimes, the response to what Donald Trump says or does is as bad or worse than him. And so, hey, let's stop this vortex of vitriol, you know, and get to what we can agree on, which is a lot, you know. And so I did make a few calls in that period of time and said, hey, this is, I think, what the president should say. Of course, I mean, I don't know if it got to him or not. Certainly he didn't say those things that I think could have brought

Americans together around more of a consensus. Hey, would it be right to activate the military to stop people from burning down people's businesses in Portland or Seattle? Yes. Yeah, that would make sense. But the way it was portrayed was just even more divisive. Well, Trump certainly chose the path of divisiveness repeatedly, Caddy. And one of the defining relationships, there's Putin, of course, but another defining foreign policy relationship for Donald Trump, which is discussed at length in this book, is with Xi Jinping of China. Yeah. And of course, it's his relationship with China and the pivoting of that relationship that UHR say is one of the better things that Donald Trump does. And you write about a meeting between

then President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, quote, as Trump began to speak, I experienced a wave of apprehension that caused a sinking feeling in my stomach. The president agreed with Xi that military exercises with South Korea were provocative and went on to describe them as a waste of money. Even worse, he seemed to agree with Xi's suggestion of a return of freeze for freeze. Trump did not refer to the talking points I had given him on the top issues of Taiwan, the South China Sea, and the Senkakus.

His response to Xi's complaints about all three gave the impression of U.S. ambivalence over countering People's Liberation Army aggression across the region. Just when I thought it could get no worse, Trump offered to mediate on the Senkakus, implying that China had a legitimate claim to be adjudicated. I passed White House Chief of Staff John Kelly a folded note. She ate our lunch.

Trump walked into the trap. It's a great scene. And there are many great scenes in the book, HR. When you look at a possible second Trump administration, what do we learn from the first one? And who do you think there could be that could play the kind of, you know, harnessing of the disruptive nature of the president that you tried to play in the first administration? Well, Katty, it does matter, you know, who's around the president. And we hope the president would appoint good people. I think there are a lot of good people waiting. Well, I think in confirmable positions, yes.

I mean, I know that there are some good people waiting to come to help any president. One of the themes in the book, Katty, is like, you know, hey, listen, I mean, I served in the Trump administration. And this is not a woe is me book. I mean, I was I was grateful for the opportunity to help the elected president. This is my sixth commander in chief that I'd served under as a military officer. So I hope that good Americans who can make a difference in any administration volunteer to serve, whether it's in uniform, as a diplomat, as an intelligence official. We need the best young Americans to serve our nation at this critical moment, which Richard has written about in the recent foreign affairs. It's a really critical moment in history for us.

And so I hope that's the theme, Katty. And, you know, of course, you know, the Donald Trump or portray in that meeting with Xi Jinping, that's probably not going to surprise a lot of Americans. I mean, he does, you know, say what's without filter a lot of times. And sometimes that's good. Sometimes that's arresting. Sometimes that is damaging. It just depends on, you know, what's on his mind at the time. And and yeah, but I hope that the main, you know, the main thrust of the book and kind of the tenor of the book is that, hey, it was a privilege to serve. This is this is a complicated picture like it is

within any administration. And I hope Americans learn what it was like. I mean, I think it's a, in many cases, like that story and others, I mean, there are stories that I think are insightful in terms of the president's character, personality, and how he interacted with the challenges that we're still facing today. And, Katty, that's alluded to, that's one of the big elements of continuity between the Trump and Biden administrations. I mean, I think there's really very little daylight on the need to compete with China, China's military aggression in the South China Sea that we're seeing, but also the weaponization of their statist mercantilist economic model against us. Yeah. I mean, you know, I think most of America's allies would agree that actually what the former president did on China,

what he did with the Abraham is cause there were things that were good in terms of foreign policy that came out of the Trump administration. Let's talk a little bit about Europe and NATO. I had an interview with a senior European diplomat recently and asked him, you know, what would what would be the good thing that could come out of a second Trump presidency? And there was a kind of, you know, about 30 seconds of silence and then a rather embarrassed laugh and nothing was basically what he said. What do you think in terms of Europe and European allies? Mine, increasingly, I have come to think that America first means Europe last. What do you think a second Trump presidency would mean for NATO and Ukraine and European alliances? Well, you know, I would just tell my European friends, get over it, right?

If it is President Trump, just think about, OK, what are his priorities, right? And I write about these pretty extensively in the book, right? It's reciprocity. He used to say to me, that's my favorite word, reciprocity, right? And that's reciprocity in trade and barrier of entry into markets and so forth. But also what he wants is burden sharing. That's another big. And so a lot of European countries are delivering on that now. They ought to highlight we're delivering on it. You know, the person who was, and I tell the story of the book too, who was most adept at interacting with President Trump was Prime Minister Abe. And what he brought on one occasion is a map of the United States

with circles that represented the extent of Japanese investment in those states. And so he began to see, okay, yeah, we do have a trade in balancing goods with Japan, but there are these other benefits and the number of jobs that were created. So I think, hey, stop wringing hands about it. If it happens, right, if President Trump comes in for another term, you know, forge that kind of relationship that the Prime Minister Abe had with President Trump. Good point. All right. The new book is titled At War With Ourselves, My Tour of Duty in the Trump White House. It is on sale now. Retired Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, thank you. Thank you for coming in. Thanks, Joe. Next up here, Morning Joe. One of our upcoming guests says Democrats have finally found Donald Trump's Achilles heel, and it's to

mock and ridicule him. We'll dig into that new piece. Plus, Democratic Senator Chris Coons, who was national co-chair of President Biden's reelection campaign, declared his support for Kamala Harris at the DNC last week. He joins the conversation in just a few minutes. Morning Joe is coming right back. Chopper 4 making us look good this morning. An absolutely gorgeous shot of lower Manhattan. 7 a.m. sun coming up

here in New York City. Beautiful, beautiful shot. And welcome back to Morning Joe. It is Tuesday, August 27th. I'm Jonathan Lemire, along with U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kay. We're in for Joe, Mika, and Willie. Eugene Robinson is still with us and joining the conversation. We now have MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle and member of the New York Times editorial board, Mara Gay. And, Cady, before we dive into the headlines again, just a quick debrief on what we just heard from H.R. McMaster in his new book. You know, he said that Donald Trump's favorite word is reciprocity. We should add now to that retribution, which also really struck me. McMaster's, you know, who does paint a pretty vivid picture of the time in the White House and the chaos there and certainly, you know, highly critical of some parts of Trump's foreign policy. But I was really

struck by his message to Europe, were Trump to be elected again, including as the war in Ukraine rages. And his message to our European allies would simply be, get over it. Yeah, I mean, it was basically kind of suck it up. And look, it sounds like a tough message, but I think there's some validity in that because Europe can't walk away from America. Whoever is president of the United States of America, Europe has to deal with.

So they have to find a way to deal with a future President Trump if he gets reelected. They may not love it. And of course, they're going to be concerned about NATO. And of course, they're going to be concerned about Ukraine. But actually, just taking a playbook from Shinzo Abe, the former prime minister of Japan's book about find things that Donald Trump wants and likes. I mean, even if it's down, Shinzo Abe used to say, you know, entertain him, you know, have a meeting on a golf course, give him the food he likes, serve him hamburgers, not sushi.

I mean, literally kind of do what Donald Trump wants to get what you need out of him. But they're going to have to deal with him and kind of get over it is probably about the best advice you could give Europe at the moment. But, Gene, the other thing I thought was really interesting about that conversation is how far he is willing to go and how far he is not willing to go in criticizing Donald Trump and what is the role of somebody in H.R. McMaster's position. And he called on his kind of military background and said, well, it's not the role of a military

officer to say who you should vote for. But I thought that he's trying to kind of thread a needle there, I thought. Yeah, I think I'll go a little further. I think there's just a stark contradiction in the position that he's taking. I do understand the reluctance and reticence of retired generals and certainly serving generals to speak out on politics, what he calls partisan politics. The military, you know, serves whichever party is in office and whichever president is in office, and civilian control is certainly a hallmark of the way this country has always operated and should always operate. But that said, there's a difference between, you know, partisan politics and the future of the nation and national security and things that a retired general, I think, should and does care about. And so on the one hand, he says, get over it. And on

the other hand, he he details these these episodes and incidents that are really frightening and at the very least unsettling and question the man's fitness to hold any office, much less be commander in chief. And so I don't think there's a tightrope there. I think I think if that's what you're going to tell us, then you should own up to the fact that that's what you're telling us. Yeah. Mike Barnicle, I know you were listening to that conversation, eager to get your thoughts. And this is someone who obviously have decorated service, and we thank him for that. But should he have gone further and made this book more of a warning about what a second Trump term could be? Well, Jonathan, first of all, I have not read the book. I have enormous respect for General McMaster. He's a brilliant guy. His book on Vietnam,

Dereliction of Duty, is something that every military officer, I think, has read. He's a graduate of West Point. He's got a Ph.D. from North Carolina, Chapel Hill. And I was stunned, stunned at one excerpt verbally that he indicated just during the interview with you with regard to Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, where Donald Trump thought he could win his way with Putin, that by offering him a free room at Mar-a-Lago, whatever, that his personality would dominate Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin is one of the most dangerous people in the world. And the president of the United States thinking that he can win him over with a smile and a meal

or whatever Donald Trump thought was shocking to me hearing that from General McMaster. We've had other generals, General Barry McCaffrey, General John Kelly, other generals speak out adamantly about the dangers, the dangers of a second Trump administration. And I thought General McMaster sort of towed the line on that. And I was surprised by it. Yeah, we just saw footage there of Helsinki, the most vivid illustration of Trump being subservient to Putin in that moment. And he continues to praise Putin even after the invasion of Ukraine.