Morning Joe - Morning Joe 8/28/23

Episode Date: August 28, 2023

Three people killed in racially-motivated shooting

The manifesto is, quite frankly, the diary of a madman. He was just completely irrational. But with his irrational thoughts, he knew what he was doing. He was 100% lucid. He knew what he was doing. And again, it's disappointing that anyone would go to these lengths to hurt someone else. His sickening ideology is not representative of the values of this Jacksonville community that we all love so much. We are not a community of hate. We stand united with the good and decent people of this city.

We reject this inexcusable violence. That is the sheriff in Jacksonville, Florida, yesterday describing the white gunman who carried out a racially motivated rampage on Saturday afternoon, killing three people. We'll have a live report from Florida in just a moment. Also had a hearing in Washington later this morning could determine the timeline now for Donald Trump's federal election interference case. We'll explain what's happening in that courtroom today. Meanwhile, this mugshot has been worth millions of dollars already for the Trump campaign. More on the record-breaking donations coming in just ahead. Plus, an update out of Russia on the suspected death of a mercenary group leader who was once a close ally to President Vladimir Putin. Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It is Monday,

August the 28th. I'm Willie Geist. Joe and Mika off this morning. With us, we've got the host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico and author of The Big Lie, Jonathan Lemire, back in the building. Also with us, U.S. Special Correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kaye, and the president of the National Action Network, host of MSNBC's Politics Nation, the Reverend Al Sharpton. Good morning to you all. Rev, today marks the National Action Network, host of MSNBC's Politics Nation, the Reverend Al Sharpton. Good morning to you all. Rev, today marks the 60th anniversary, as you know well, of the March on Washington and Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s I Have a Dream speech.

Many as a quarter of a million people gathered on the National Mall on this day in 1963. In honor of that moment, thousands gathered on the National Mall on Saturday, including Dr. King's family and a number of civil rights leaders, including yourself, Rev. You were there. This is something you've been telling us about for many months, anticipating it, connecting Dr. King's dream and that speech 60 years ago to where we are today. Tell us about the weekend, Rev. Well, the weekend was very invigorating. We were able to see a crock section of people of all races, and it was intergenerational. We had projected and put on the Parks Department permit that we expected 75,000 people. We did a

lot more than that. When you looked out at the audience, it was under bushes because of the heat. But when we got ready to march, you could see throngs of people, interracial, intergenerational, led by Martin Luther King III and Andrea Waters King, who head the Drum Age Institute and Me National Action Network. But then it was the Anti-Defamation League and it was the UNIDOS organization, one of the prime national organizations for Latinos and Asian Americans and Native Americans and young students. There were like over 100 buses that came in from HBCUs that businessmen had helped National Action Network sponsor. And then in the middle of it all, not knowing to us at the time, is this hate crime in Jacksonville. And before Martin and Andre and I got back to the hotel, we heard about this shooting.

So in many ways, the unity and the hope that the march showed and the believing in the dream was hit with the reality that hate still exists with the weapons that are available to maximize that hate in terms of AR-15 rifles, SWAT sticker drawn on the rifle. The reality of where we are hit us as we go forward as celebrating where we've come in 60 years, but realizing how far we still have to go. Yeah, and Rev, we'll talk more about that shooting in just a moment. But one of the things you were trying to do at this march was hold institutions accountable who made pledges after George Floyd was murdered, but haven't actually delivered on them yet.

Where are we with that? Talk a little bit about how the country has moved since George Floyd, when it was a, you know, the images were everywhere. It was trending everywhere. Companies were putting out press statements everywhere. What are they actually doing in the name of racial justice? And how much are they putting their money where their mouth is? Well, sadly, we have a lot more broken promises than fulfillment. And one of the things that was stated at the march, and it was central in my statement,

was that we are going to target companies that have made commitments in the moment of George Floyd, in the moment of that movement, and George Floyd's brother, Philonise, and others were there to march, that have not lived up to it. There was over $300 billion committed. There were commitments made on contracts and commitments made on doing business that has not been fulfilled and, in some cases, totally taken back. So when we looked at businessmen that were there that did perform over and above their commitment, Robert Smith, a black billionaire, Robert Kraft, an NFL owner, marching with us, and we look at the list, we have done an analysis of the companies that made commitments and what they delivered.

They will be the people that we come and what they delivered, they will be the people that we come out of this march saying you're going to keep your commitment or people need to know it and not be consumers of your product. The theme of my speech was that we're the dreamers, but we have to confront the schemers. It's dreamers and schemers coming out of this march. And as you said over the weekend, this is a continuation, not a commemoration of the march on Washington. A lot of work ahead. As Rev mentioned, some new developments this morning out of Jacksonville, Florida, where three people were killed in what police are calling a racially motivated attack. On Saturday, two shoppers and an employee were shot at a Dollar General store near the historically

black college Edward Waters University. All three of the victims were black. Authorities say the 21 year old gunman, who was white, died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. They described him as a, quote, maniac who wanted to kill black people. Said they found more than 20 pages of racist writings on his laptop. Police say the suspect legally purchased the two guns used in the attack, a Glock handgun and an AR-15 style rifle. The rifle had swastikas drawn on it. The gunman had no criminal record but was sent for a 72-hour involuntary psychiatric evaluation in 2017. Under Florida law, those evaluations do not show up in background checks unless the person has been committed for treatment. Joining us now from the scene of the shooting in Jacksonville,

NBC News correspondent Jay Gray. Jay, good morning. What more can you tell us today? Hey, good morning, Willie. You can see the scene just behind us here, and it's still locked down. Investigators still pouring through looking for any evidence that may help them understand how and why this attack was carried out. Yesterday, Sunday, a full 24 hours after the attack, several hundred gathered outside of the police tape here for a vigil, calling for unity, praying for help and hope in a community that's really been rocked by what has happened here over the

weekend. That 21-year-old suspect you talk about walking into the store but beginning his killing spree outside, firing into a vehicle in the parking lot and killing a 19-year-old employee who was in that car and then, as you mentioned, inside the store and killing two more employees. What investigators are telling us, Willie, is that he let several people inside that store go, a couple of them white, but others that he allowed to leave before opening fire. He was leaving the Dollar General as police met him at the door. He rushed back inside, barricaded inside an office, and apparently turned his weapon on himself. We know that he left several letters, a suicide note, and then those what police are calling

manifestos, hate-filled, rage-filled notes talking about killing African-Americans. His first stop, though, before all of this happened, Willie, was at a historically black college here, Edward Waters University. He was confronted by security there. Don't know about that interaction. What we know is that he did use that area kind of as a basis for operation, getting things prepared, putting on a tactical vest and a mask. The sheriff here has said that he did have the opportunity to open fire at that university, chose not to, instead driving to this location about a mile away. Just horrific details of this story and explicitly racially motivated in his writings. NBC's Jay Gray on the scene there in Jacksonville, Florida.

Jay, thanks so much. Jonathan, the president, put out a statement last night, said he was praying for the victims and also added, we must say clearly and forcefully that white supremacy has no place in America. Yeah, the president very strong with his language there. Really, certainly a sadly familiar tale that another moment of this, the Nazi swastika is emblazoned on the gun, an online manifesto full of flat out racist and vile imagery fueling this attack. And Reverend Sharpton, as you noted, it came as you were participating in that march in Washington, suggesting how much further we have to go. And it was so reminiscent to me of the shooting in Buffalo a year ago. I was with President Biden when he went to that scene, that grocery store that was on site of another

racist mass shooting. So as you see this, that's a year ago, this over the weekend, these things keep happening. Just what does it stir within you about how much further our nation still has to go? Well, it stirs in me a sense of sadness, but also a sense of urgency that we must deal with the weapons of hate. I don't know. I'm a minister and I have deep faith. And I mean that sincerely. But I don't know we can get everyone out of hatred that has hate in them. But I do know we can stop facilitating it with assault weapons and not even a background check. The president and the vice president has invited members of the King family and some of us that organized the march on Saturday and the commemoration and continuation to meet with

them at the White House this afternoon. And we are going to have frank talks on in the name of what the march was about in 63. We need to have legislation. The Senate and the Congress must meet, must make their agreement with the president to do something about it. It is just like Buffalo, because this store, Dollar General, was the only store in that area people could use, just like Top Supermarket was the same in Buffalo. So he knew where to go to get a large amount of black people. And the other thing that was kind of striking to me, to Jonathan and the rest of us talking this morning, is that when you study the 63 March, this great moment, and Martin Luther King and I have a dream, and a quarter of a million people, and then a couple of weeks later, a man bombed the Birmingham church and killed four girls.

So it's almost scary how we're seeing history repeat itself. Thousands come with hope across racial lines. And hate reminds us that our job is not finished yet. Yeah, hate sees a moment to push back. And as you say, in this case and too many others, hate combined with powerful, powerful weapons. We're going to come back to this story, of course, throughout the morning. Talk more about the 60th anniversary of the I Have a Dream speech as well. There is some legal news today. A judge is expected to set a trial date in the federal election interference case against former President Donald Trump.

At 10 o'clock Eastern time this morning, lawyers for both Trump and the Justice Department are scheduled to appear before District Court Judge Tanya Chutkin for a status hearing. The team for special counsel Jack Smith has proposed the trial begin in early January of this coming year. In response, Trump's lawyers requested the trial not begin until April of 2026. The former president has pleaded not guilty to four charges related to his alleged efforts to stay in power following his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. Meanwhile, regarding the charges against Trump and 18 co-defendants in Georgia for election interference, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows is pushing to move his case from

Fulton County to a federal court. There are at least four witnesses subpoenaed to testify at today's hearing on that matter, including Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Meadows was on the now infamous call where Donald Trump asked to find the necessary votes to win the state. I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state. There's nothing wrong with saying that, you know, that you've recalculated. January 2nd, 2021. Meadows plans to argue he was acting in his capacity as the top aide to former President Trump. So it should be in federal court. Also today, the court will be considering a push by several of the defendants for a speedy trial. Let's bring in NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney.

And Ken, good morning. Let's go back to the federal matter first in Washington with Judge Chutkin announcing, we think, at about 10 o'clock this morning after that hearing, a trial date for the Jack Smith Special Counsel prosecution of Donald Trump for an attempt to overturn the 2020 election. What are you hearing about that gulf between the proposed dates, one early January 2024, the other from the Trump team, April of 2026. Where might it fall in there? Good morning, Willie. Well, both proposals are probably unrealistic, but the Trump's team proposal is sort of in left field, is not even remotely realistic. So most legal observers believe that Judge Tanya Chutkin is going to set a trial date sometime next year before the November 2024 election. It's not likely to be in January of next year.

It could be around this time or in the summer at some point. And whatever date she set may not she sets may not hold. But it'll give us an idea of her thinking about how quickly this case can get to trial. I'll be covering this hearing outside of that federal courthouse today. It's actually, as pretrial positioning goes, this is probably one of the most important pretrial hearings in this case because of the profound effects on the election. And it's really our first chance to hear from Judge Chutkan on a really important matter. So, Ken, can you just spell out then what this could mean in terms of the timing and the run up to the election and what we might learn by the end of today?

Okay, we're going to learn, you know, exactly how Judge Chuck can view this case in terms of its complexity and whether she buys at all the defense arguments that, you know, because they're receiving 11 and a half million documents, remember that they said it equivalent to reading War and Peace eight times a day from now until the beginning of the trial, whether that means that they need a year or more to prepare for this trial. The prosecution, the special counsel has said that's ridiculous. Yes, it's a lot of documents, but, you know, we're in a computer age. You can use keyword searches. We're going to help you tell you what the key documents are. Besides which, a lot of this evidence is very familiar. It was developed and made public by the January 6th committee. So we're going to see what Judge Chutkan thinks of these arguments and whether

she sets a trial date before before the summer, before the November election, it's really going to set the tone for where this thing goes from here. So going down to Fulton County, Georgia, Ken, Mark Meadows has said, I want this in federal court. I don't want to be tried by Fannie Lewis. I don't be prosecuted by Fannie Willis. So what is your sense of his chances of that? Most people say that that's probably a long shot. Do you think there's a shot he gets of his chances of that? Most people say that that's probably a long shot. Do you think there's a shot he gets it moved out of there? I think there's a better chance than, say, Donald Trump had when he tried to do the same thing in the New York case.

But just to be clear, I've been told actually that the Georgia prosecutors, the D.A., could could continue to prosecute this case in federal court. They may have to bring in prosecutors who have federal experience. They may have to file some paperwork to appear in federal court. But nothing would change about this case if he wins, except that it would be heard by a federal judge. It would still be the state charges. It's a weird 1789 law designed to protect federal officials who are acting under the color of their authority in office. Of course, the biggest argument against Meadows in this situation is you heard the tape there, the recording. Donald Trump was not acting as president in that moment. He was talking about the election. He was asking the secretary of state of Georgia to find votes. So if Meadows was sitting in that meeting or involved in that meeting or other activities like that, and he claims he was acting as a federal official, the DA is going to say, well, sir, then weren't you violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal government officials from

engaging in politics? So it'll be interesting to see exactly what his argument is there, Willie. So Meadows is one of those 18 co-defendants, along with Donald Trump, making it 19. Trump down in Georgia, turning that mugshot into a record-breaking fundraising haul. According to Politico, Trump's campaign claims to have had its best day of fundraising yet, pulling nearly $4.2 million on Friday night alone, making it the single highest 24-hour period of his campaign to date. Fundraising totaled $7.1 million in the 48 hours since his mugshot was released. Much of that fundraising comes from merchandise, T-shirts, posters, bumper stickers, coolers, ranging from $12 to $40 on that website. You see some of it there. The campaign also has been peppering online donors with emails and text

messages. Trump's campaign says it has raised nearly $20 million in the last three weeks. That figure is more than half of what Trump raised during his first seven months in the 2024 race. So we kind of expected this, Jonathan Lemire, that Donald Trump was going to make a virtue. And yes, a T-shirt of his mugshot had it pushed out almost immediately in a fundraising email on Thursday night. The question is, yes, it's exciting. And yes, it raises a bunch of money for your base supporters who do view you as a martyr and a victim who's being prosecuted by Joe Biden. That's not the way this works, of course, but that's the tale he's telling them. The question is, does it help him beyond that? He does have to win if he gets through this primary, a general election.

Does a mugshot do all these cases against him as he believes help him? Yeah, there was speculation when he was first indicted in New York back in April when we thought there might be a mugshot. There was a race to say, well, Trump's going to monetize that. And of course, no mugshot was taken there or in the federal cases. But now that we've got one in Georgia, they didn't waste any time. And we should know that's a lot of money. You're right. You can get it on coffee mugs or T-shirts. I even saw some footage over the weekend about people getting it as tattoos. Oh, I don't think Trump makes any money off of that.

It seems like it would be deeply painful. But let's remember, of course, a lot of the money that Donald Trump's raising has to go to his legal bills. So it's not all going to be spent on his campaign. And this is something that, as you say, Willie, it's one thing to give him some energy in the primary, very different in a general election. And Ken, on the subject of Georgia, one thing that struck me is this idea of the some members who are indicted along with Trump want these speedy trials. Explain to us what that means. And if they're granted them, the Sidney Powell's and others who have asked for them, what could that mean for the timing for Trump's own case? It's so interesting, Jonathan. So Kenneth Cheesebro,

the architect, alleged architect of the false elector scheme, and Sidney Powell, the lawyer who is pursuing the wackiest allegations of fraud, completely bogus, have both asked for a speedy trial. And in Cheesebro's case, the judge has granted his request and set a trial date for October. At the same time, Donald Trump's lawyer is saying that he wants a delay and that he is going to pursue a motion to sever Donald Trump from the rest of the defendants or at least any defendant that wants a speedy trial because Trump doesn't want one. Because as we know, Donald Trump's penultimate strategy in all of these cases is to delay and hope that he gets elected president, in which case

the Justice Department may decide that this Georgia case can't go forward against a sitting president. So that's where it stands. It'll be interesting to see whether any of these defendants actually get what they want and get a trial as soon as this fall. It's hard to imagine something happening in October, but it could happen rather quickly. But Donald Trump will not be among those people who are seeking that speedy trial. Jonathan. So you've got Georgia and then the big one today, as you said, Ken,

in Washington, where we could find out a trial date, obviously critical next year as it's dropped in the middle of a presidential campaign. We will see in just a few hours. NBC's Ken Delanian, thanks so much as always. Hurricane watches have been issued in parts of Florida today as Tropical Storm Idalia picks up steam. According to the National Hurricane Center, Idalia is expected to become a Category 2 hurricane as it reaches the Gulf of Mexico today. It will continue to intensify with expected landfall in Florida on Wednesday.

Governor Ron DeSantis declared a state of emergency for 33 counties on Saturday, saying those in the path of the storm should expect power outages, storm surges, and winds over 100 miles an hour. For more on this, let's turn to meteorologist Michelle Grossman. Michelle, what more can you tell us about the path of this storm? Hi there, Riley. Well, it's already starting to pick up steam. We're looking at a very strong tropical storm with winds right now at 65 miles per hour. We do expect it to become a Category 1 storm later on today and then a Category 2 storm and then eventually into a Category 3 storm as it makes landfall along the west coast of Florida. So here is the latest 125 miles south

of the western tip of Cuba. It's starting to move. It was stationary about two hours ago. It's on the move and that's going to make it into the Gulf of Mexico in a few hours. The Gulf of Mexico is so, so warm. Bathwaters at the sea surface level also deep. So we're going to see it blossom very quickly. Moving north at seven miles per hour. Again, we're looking at that strong tropical storm. Here's the track because we're looking at it blossoming into a category one storm as it enters the Gulf of Mexico. And then eventually into a Category 2 by Tuesday. Then by Wednesday, there is that Cat 3.

That is a major hurricane. We're going to look at very gusty winds. We're looking at the chance for life-threatening storm surges. Also, rainfall totals up to 10 inches. It will make landfall most likely north of Tampa, but somewhere along the Big Bend of Florida into the west coast of Florida. Then it's going to skirt over the state of Florida, still impacting portions of the southeast and then into the Carolinas. This is going to coincide with a very high tide. So we could see some flooding even in portions of the Carolinas by Wednesday into Thursday. Tropical alerts all up and down the west coast, even into

the interior portions of Florida. So you want to prepare now. You have 48 hours to get this done. Get your hurricane plan in place. We have storm surge alerts all up and down the West Coast of Florida as well, because we could see storm surges as high as 11 feet. That is a wall of water moving on to dry land. Willie? As you say, 48 hours to prepare. It looks like Wednesday morning going to hit the West Coast of Florida.

Michelle Grossman, thanks so much for the update. We appreciate it. Still ahead this morning on Morning Joe, some new reporting on three of Donald Trump's Fulton County co-defendants potentially flipping on the former president. We'll tell you who they are and what they might be able to share with prosecutors. Plus, Russian authorities officially confirmed now the death of Wagner mercenary chief Yevgeny Prokosin. We'll have some new developments of what it means for Vladimir Putin's leadership. Plus, what we are learning this morning about a crash that killed three U.S. Marines during a training exercise in Australia. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Live picture of New York City at 629 in the morning.

There's the top of our building at 30 Rockefeller Center. A new national poll shows a bit of a dip in support for Donald Trump following his decision to skip last week's Republican primary debate and to surrender to Georgia authorities and get that mugshot on Thursday. According to the latest Emerson College survey released this morning, Trump's support dropped six points from a poll taken earlier this month. The former president, though, still leading his opponents overwhelmingly, as you can see, with 50 percent of Republicans saying they plan to vote for him in next year's primary. Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, former Vice President Mike Pence, saw the biggest bumps in support following the debate, gaining five and four points respectively, but just up to seven percent each. Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who you see there in third place, appeared on two Sunday shows yesterday. Some of his exchanges with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press.

If you believe Donald Trump is the greatest president of the 21st century, he's running. Why are you running against him? Why do you think his second term won't be as good as his first? Well, look, I did say he's the best president of the 21st century from George Bush to Barack Obama to Joe Biden to Donald Trump. I think it's not even close. Who was the best of those presidents? In my book, I judge by results. That being said, I believe I can take the America first agenda even further than Donald Trump did. All right. Again, from your book, no one likes a sore loser. That's one of the worst victim hard complexes of all. Are you referring to Donald

Trump? I referred in that chapter both to Stacey Abrams and to Donald Trump. And I think that the answer is we need leaders who ultimately stand for victory over victimhood. Let me bring up a couple of questions you didn't get a chance to answer at the debate. Most of the candidates on stage Wednesday night said Mike Pence did the right thing on January 6th. Do you agree? I would have done it very differently. I think that there was a historic opportunity that he missed to reunite this country in that window. Here's what I would have said. We need single day voting on Election Day. We need paper ballots and we need government issued I.D. matching the voter file. And if we achieve that, then we have achieved victory and we should not have any further

complaint about election integrity. So what would you have done through the Senate? So what would you have done with Mike Pence? You would have not certified the election. So in my capacity as president of the Senate, I would have led through that level of reform. Then on that condition, certified the election results, served it up to the president, President Trump, then to sign that into law. And on January 7th, declared the reelection campaign pursuant to a free and fair election. I think that was a missed opportunity.

Vivek Ramaswamy on Meet the Press. joining us now, senior columnist at The Daily Beast, Matt Lewis. Matt, good morning. Before we dig into your latest piece titled Trump and Ramaswamy, show us how the worst get to the top. Parse through some of what he was saying yesterday with Chuck. I mean, we heard a lot of that at the debate the other night. Does he believe any of that? I mean, he's a smart guy without question. That sounds very cynical to most people listening that he's trying to sort of impersonate Trump, be a stand in for Donald Trump. I like the Ramaswamy who wrote the book like two years ago, who made some very good points. Not as much the Ramaswami today, who is contradicting and flip-flopping on all those points. And look, he is a very, obviously, a very intelligent person. He's very eloquent.

He can go on TV and express himself very well. And then it's only after you unpack the points he makes that you realize most of them are kind of BS. So, for example, the idea that Mike Pence, the vice president of the United States, had the power to tell states who, by the way, run elections, you know, that Mike Pence had the constitutional power to tell these states they had to do in-person voting and that they had to have paper ballots and all of these things and that it was mike pence's responsibility not donald trump's response remember donald trump is telling people don't do mail-in voting which again interestingly vivek actually did mail-in voting later on chuck todd asked him how he voted in 2020 he didn't vote

in person he did mail-in voting and he cited a global pandemic as the reason why he did mail-in voting. Well, maybe that's why a lot of other people did the same thing. So again, if you just listen to him, maybe you're flipping the channel or something. He sounds incredibly compelling and eloquent. But when you start to unpack the things he's saying, they usually don't really hold water. And that's what happened on the debate stage as well, when he said, cut off all the funding for Ukraine. I'd issue a preemptive pardon for Donald Trump and climate change is a hoax. In the case of yesterday's interview with Chuck, Chuck just read his book back to him and said, well, that's not what you were saying two years ago in your book. In your piece, Matt, you write

this quote. How is it that tech bro Vivek Ramaswamy, a self-described skinny kid with a funny name who's never held public office, rarely even votes, and has been on both sides of numerous issues, became the hottest commodity in the Republican Party? How was he considered one of the big winners of Wednesday night's debate, despite his unctuous and demagogic performance? If you want my honest answer, why should we expect anything less? The concomitant buzz surrounding Ramaswamy reminds us the problem isn't Trump per se, but a culture that rewards and incentivizes Trumpian behavior. Once you understand and accept this reality, it's easier to make political predictions regarding the

GOP. Who wins? The people who have no sense of shame, the people who are willing to kiss your butt or slit your throat, depending on the circumstances. The real danger, Matt writes, is not Ramaswamy or Trump, but what our enthronement with politicians like them says about one of our two major political parties. And so where does that leave then, Matt Lewis, someone like Nikki Haley, who a lot of people think had a good night the other night, or Mike Pence or Chris Christie, who's been the most openly critical of Donald Trump, who are trying to in many ways go about this like a conventional presidential campaign and watching Donald Trump and Vivek Ramaswamy

rise next to them? Well, look, on one hand, Willie, I think if you watch that debate, you could say, hey, there's hope, right? If you are a Reagan Republican, if you're a freedom conservative, if you're someone who believes in kind of limited government and traditional conservative values, not the quote unquote new right, you might have watched that debate and concluded, hey, everything's great. You know, Chris Christie did a great job of supporting Ukraine against Russia's invasion. Mike Pence rhetorically did a great job. And I think Nikki Haley did a fantastic job. She, I believe, overperformed certainly my expectations.

So you might have watched that debate and concluded things are pretty good. And if Trump were to disappear, we might be in OK shape, the Republican Party might come back. The problem is if you start to actually add up the polling and consider who's winning, something like 75 or 80 percent of Republican voters are supporting either Donald Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, or Ron DeSantis. So it's, you know, the people that we've mentioned here, Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, Chris Christie, that's like maybe 20, 21 percent of the vote. And so maybe it's not as cheery as the debate made it look.

And the last thing I would add, Willie, is the attention economy right now. Who is getting the attention and the buzz and the excitement? It's Vivek Ramaswamy. He is winning that argument, or at least that part of the campaign right now. And, you know, in my piece, I talk about this famous Hayek book, of course, The Road to Serfdom. And he talks in it, he has a chapter that talks about why the worst get on top. He was talking about totalitarian regimes where like the old Soviet Union, it's not Trotsky who

ends up, you know, succeeding Lenin, right? It's the worst. It's Stalin. It's someone who's willing to do whatever it takes to win. Obviously, we are blessed that we do not live in that kind of regime here in America. But I think that the dynamic is similar, that it is the worst people in the Republican Party right now who are more likely to do what it takes to get to the top. Matt, Al Sharpton, you know I ran in 2004, so I know about the debates. We did a lot of debates during that time. And I watched these debates, this debate the other night, looking at the fact that when you walk on that big stage and those big lights hit you, it's different than anything you've ever experienced. Did you get a sense of those that were on the stage that just didn't belong on the stage. They might be good politicians. They may have done things, but they just seemed like they were not ready for that

level of engagement. And even Ramaswamy, who's getting a lot of attention, when you start going on national television saying that the vice president should have made conditions in order to certify election, I mean, that kind of doesn't make sense at that level. You can get away with that in college lectures. But who do you see as not being able to really live up to the stage that they're at, including Ramaswamy? How long can you get along where people start saying, well, they're a little out of their category? Well, unfortunately, I think that Vivek Ramaswamy is going to flourish, despite the fact that I think he is somewhat shallow, despite the fact that a lot of us find him very off-putting, kind of condescending. And despite the fact that he often, you know, doesn't have his facts quite right. Interestingly, an interesting move in a

Republican primary, he's quite often kind of alludes to Barack Obama, steals Barack Obama's lines, including telling Mike Pence that, you know, guess what? The Cold War is over. The 1980s are behind us, that kind of thing. I actually think that that Ramaswamy does well in this environment, which I think is very superficial. In my opinion, the person who's not quite ready for primetime in terms of the show, right, getting up there under the lights is actually Ron DeSantis. I was surprised to see that there was a poll that came out, a Washington Post poll that came out right after the debate that showed that Ron DeSantis actually went up in the polls a little bit and that people thought he won. It could just be that he was able to fly under the radar, that he was not attacked. He was not. But I believe in this

attention economy, being the center of attention more often than not is a benefit. That was Vivek. That wasn't Ron DeSantis. So I think DeSantis is the one who has the most work to do in terms of being able to be on that stage eloquently. Yeah, it was very telling last week at the debate that the attacks from the other seven you might think would go at Ron DeSantis, who's the leaders of those trying to catch Donald Trump, were not trained at all on Ron DeSantis. They were all going at Vivek, which is the point you make in your piece. Senior columnist at The Daily Beast, Matt Lewis. Matt, thanks as always. Good to see you. Coming up next, we're now getting an assessment on Russia's unprovoked war and how it will unfold in the next year. The candid discussions the

Biden administration is now having about Ukraine's progress over the last 18 months. David Ignatius joins us next carrying 23 U.S. Marines crashed on a North Australian island. At least three Marines were killed, five others taken to the hospital with serious injuries. According to a U.S. military statement, the incident happened yesterday at 9.30 a.m. local time during routine multinational training exercises. The Marine Corps did not release the names of the Marines killed. The 12-day exercise scheduled to end next week. The cause of the crash is still under investigation. Meanwhile, Russia says DNA testing has confirmed the head of the Wagner mercenary group

was on board the passenger jet that exploded near Moscow last week. Though neither U.S. intelligence nor NBC News has confirmed Yevgeny Prokofiev was in fact on the plane. American officials say they believe it is likely he was and that a detonated bomb is what caused that explosion. Western officials have said Progozhin's apparent death may have been in response to his attempted coup in June. But the Kremlin denied having anything to do with that explosion. Joining us now, columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius. David, good morning. It's good to see you. So is this as simple as most people believe it is, which is that Evgeny Prokhorin attempted a coup. He stopped just short of Moscow

and a couple of months later he was killed for it. So it seems to me that Putin has basically redrawn the lines. The social contract in Putin's Russia has been stay out of politics and you can have your share of turf. Putin allowed Prokhorov to become more and more powerful, but Prokhorov clearly crossed the line, challenged Putin himself, marched on Moscow. This is the result. I'm struck by the official announcement that he's dead, which then leaves open the question, OK, who killed him? And are they going to have an official investigation of who killed him? I doubt it, or at least not a fair one. But I think Putin has consolidated power. He's redrawn the lines. He said, this is the way our country is going to work. He cannot wipe out the critique that Prokhorin made of this war.

Prokhorin was outspoken. It gave him a lot of popularity. He said, this war was not necessary. Our army is not performing well. In truth, if it hadn't been for Pogosian filling the gap in Bakhmut, in the east, in Ukraine, Russian forces might have been obliterated in some of that fighting. So it's a mixed legacy. But I do think on balance, we see Putin reinforcing not simply his personal control, but the rules of the game in Russia.

David, you've got a new piece out with some reporting on the state of that war and what U.S. officials are thinking about it, that it's not a stalemate, but it's not a victory either. And it seems to me from reading what you've written that the thinking is that this is going to push on into a second year. And I guess the question is, is if this pushes on for another year, this kind of offensive or reiteration of it, is there confidence in the administration that there will be continued allied military commitment to Ukraine at the kind of levels that Ukrainians would need. So, Katya, let's just break down the pieces of this analysis. All across our government, the last few weeks, officials have been trying to make an assessment of how the Ukrainians did in their counteroffensive. Awful lot of U.S. hardware went into it. Weeks of planning, war gaming, simulation. So what are their judgments?

First, there won't be the breakthrough cutting Russian land access to Crimea. The hope had been that Ukrainian troops could get all the way to the Sea of Azov through Zaporizh or in other ways, get to the Black Sea, cut that land bridge. Judgment is that's not going to happen. That maximal goal won't happen. Even so, this isn't a stalemate, as some people say. The Ukrainians continue to make slow progress. They took a key village yesterday that they've been trying to obtain for weeks. So there's a sense that they still could make some significant gains before mud and winter bring major combat operations to a close. In this period, there's

been a lot of critique of how Ukraine has used U.S. weapons and doctrine, that they need to be more mobile. They're still fighting in too Soviet a style. They expend enormous amounts of artillery. I was given one estimate that they have fired two million rounds of artillery, just an enormous quantity, saturating the target and then moving. And the U.S. has a different view. You've got to fire artillery, then move quickly, fire artillery in support of your targets. I think another conclusion is that, yes, this war will go into another year. And the U.S. needs to begin preparing for that by providing what people are describing to me as the force of the future for Ukraine. It will include the F-16 jets that are

on the way. It will include other weapon systems. But the idea is for a longer-term commitment to stability in Ukraine that isn't simply dependent on the U.S. Who knows who's going to win our presidential election next year? But that reinforces European commitments, Germany, the Netherlands. Interestingly, it's the Dutch and the Danish who are supplying the F-16s, not the U.S. So a final point I think that's come out of this review, Caddy, is a recognition that for now, diplomacy, something that the Biden administration does yearn for, has talked with China about, diplomacy isn't likely to happen now. Putin simply isn't ready for it. He still thinks he can outlast the West on the ground. He can pound and humble Ukraine. So for now, unfortunately, there is not a diplomatic

exit ramp. So continuing to next year with this idea, the force of the future as a better guarantee of Ukraine's long-term independence and ability to defend itself. So, David, with Putin tightening his grip on power and certainly showing no signs of stopping this war, at least before the 2024 presidential election in place, one of his buddies gets back into power here in the U.S. As you say, there's concerns, though, about U.S.'s future commitment to this. White House officials I speak to say they're pretty confident they're going to be able to get this next funding package through Congress this fall, maybe not the size they want,

but they feel like they're still, despite some loud opposition on the far right, they still think they can do it. But they also recognize it's only going to get harder as polls continue to show that Americans are tiring of this war effort a little bit or concerned about money is spent. So if this does play out, as you suggest, into next year and beyond military officials you speak to, how worried are they that eventually that funding is going to dry up and could prove disastrous for Ukraine? So I think there is concern about that. The response is twofold. First, they're front-loading as much as they can. You'll see, while I still think they have significant congressional majorities, an effort to get more equipment, more of what Ukraine will need through next year, through additional fighting.

Second, they're trying to broaden the base of Ukraine's support. So it's not as dependent as it's been on the United States. That may be a heavy lift, but my sense is that in Europe, the commitment remains strong. There's less wavering than you see in the United States. When former President Sarkozy in France expressed some sympathy for Russia, he was immediately denounced over the weekend by Russian President Macron and other Russian, excuse me, French President Macron and others. So I do think that European support is not crumbling. But I think there is an effort to think carefully,

how do we sustain this long term? Putin's main bet is that the West will tire and give up. And so people are trying to address that very directly, talking, planning, planning what the specific forces will be, where they'll come from, who will pay for them to avoid precisely the problem you're describing. And the Biden administration, of course, has remained steadfast in its support of Ukraine, promising more support as this war goes on. As you mentioned, though, some Republicans in Congress more skeptical. The Washington Post, David Ignatius. David, thanks so much. We appreciate it always.