Morning Joe - Morning Joe 8/9/22

Episode Date: August 9, 2022

FBI search at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home tied to classified material, sources say

I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as president, I must put the interests of America first. Therefore, I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as president at that hour in this office. August 8th, 1974, remembered as the day Richard Nixon resigned from office. Now, 48 years later, Donald Trump becomes the first ex-president to have the FBI execute a search warrant on his home. Trump posted just before 7 p.m. last night that Mar-a-Lago was, quote, currently under siege, raided and occupied by a large group of FBI agents, adding, quote, they even broke into my safe. A source familiar with the search tells NBC News the investigation is related to the transfer of classified government documents from the White

House to Mar-a-Lago. The National Archives reported in February that 15 boxes of documents were improperly taken to the president's Florida estate when he left office. At the time, the agency said it had asked the Justice Department to investigate. A source familiar with the situation tells NBC News boxes of documents received during yesterday's FBI search. Trump's attorney released a statement claiming the former president and his legal team have been cooperative with the FBI and DOJ, quote, every step of the way. Trump slammed the search as, quote, prosecutorial misconduct, the weaponization of the justice system and an attack by radical left Democrats who desperately don't want me to run for president in 2024. Actually, they do, because if you run, Democrats know they'll win.

So you got that wrong, too. But I'm sorry, Miki, go ahead. The former president was in New York City at the time of the search as he prepares to be deposed in the state's civil case against the Trump organization. He left Trump Tower last night without commenting. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Tuesday, August 9th. And Joe, I want to hear your thoughts off the bat. But keeping in mind, I believe the head of the FBI was appointed by Trump.

Yeah, called him, called him a great guy, man of the highest integrity. It's just like all these people that are testifying against Donald Trump in the January 6th hearings. They're all Trumpers. The guy running the FBI, a Trumper appointed by Donald Trump. These aren't left wing Democrats. But, you know, it's interesting. Vladimir Putin, he he doesn't believe in the rule of law. She doesn't, you know, laughs at the idea of the rule of law. Orban, the hero of right wing freaks in America. He doesn't believe in the rule of law.

They all systematically work to break down the rule of law, just like Donald Trump. The only problem is that we Americans, we still believe that no man is above the law. We still believe in the rule of law. That's why Donald Trump is under investigation right now in Georgia for trying to steal an election. It's why the DOJ is investigating Donald Trump for leading a failed, of course, failed because you'll notice I use the words Donald Trump at the beginning of the sentence. Donald Trump is under investigation for leading a failed fascist coup against the United States on January the 6th. And he's also under investigation for seizing classified documents from the White House after he left and taking them down to Morilago, which is very rich.

The irony of it all, the lock her up chance because of some emails that may have been classified later. But Donald Trump, he grabbed classified documents, put them in boxes and fled for Mar-a-Lago. The ones that he didn't tear up and flush down toilets, the ones that he didn't tear up and destroy and throw in garbage cans, the evidence he didn't destroy. You see, yesterday, it was that last possible crime that Donald Trump committed that brought the FBI lawfully and legally to Donald Trump's front doors as they tried to find those documents, tried to get to the bottom of all of this with legal search warrants. And again, legal search warrants. And that's what's so fascinating here. You had people last night screeching on other networks. These are the networks that have been attacking our men and women in uniform,

that have been attacking the FBI since Donald Trump came to office. They love the FBI until, well, they started supporting a man who broke laws, who has contempt for the law, who believes he is above the law. Well, this morning, August 9th, 2022, we are reminded again that in America, no man is above the law. And we're going to break down all the angles to this story, the political implications with former RNC chairman Michael Still and NBC News national affairs analyst John Heilman. The historical significance with MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle and NBC News presidential historian Michael Beschloss. Barnicle, by the way, was in the gallery during the Andrew Johnson attempted Andrew Johnson impeachment. And the latest on the investigation itself with former

U.S. attorney and senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg and also congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post, Jackie Alomany. But first, let's go to Palm Beach, Florida, West Palm Beach, Florida. We've got NBC News senior national correspondent Kerry Sanders. Kerry, what can you tell us this morning? Well, good morning. Right now, everything is dark. You can see over my shoulder, Mar-a-Lago, very few lights on, if any, that you can even see on the camera. We do know that the Secret Service, which is on the property now, was also on the property yesterday, and they were notified before the FBI arrived. The FBI arrived with a, well, as it was described, as a raid. That was

described by the former president himself. The FBI agents arriving in the morning and spending much of the day there. Now, it's important to note that this was a search warrant, but that that search warrant has not been made public yet. We don't know which judge signed the search warrant, but typically what would happen is attempts back and forth to get access to information and documents would have reached a critical level to get to the point of a search warrant. And the judge would have had good probable cause to believe that the FBI agents could go on the property and find specific things that they are looking for, apparently looking for documents

that the National Archives says are missing and that they know should be returned. When the FBI arrived and during the search, there were representatives from the Trump lawyers, representing Trump, that were there monitoring all of this. Typically, in a situation like this, especially because this is so unprecedented and historic, the FBI would have been likely videotaping,

taking pictures to document what they're doing. But at the same time, there is a security system there. And so there will be video that the Mar-a-Lago security system has. None of that has been released. The Department of Justice would very unlikely release any video. What the ex-president would do here, what the former president might do here, very different. Now, as this is all taking place, there's a big question. What's in that search warrant? And we may, assuming it's not under seal, we may get some information today

when the courts open up today and we can go look at that public document. But it's important to note here that as far back as February, when the 15 boxes of documents were returned to the National Archives, that there was a sort of description. And in some cases, the description talked about what was there, very innocuous items like menus and schedules and agendas, but also that there was a description that couldn't actually be described because of the top secret nature of the documents that, as The Washington Post pointed out, that it could not be described because to even describe it would reveal the nature of those top secret documents. And what the what the grand jury has been looking into from what we understand here is that there are these documents that should have been returned and have not been returned.

As you can imagine, overnight, there was a group of Trump supporters who gathered out here to show their support, waving some Trump flags with their show of support. No real problems associated with that, just a general sense that they believe that this has all become a result of some sort of political agenda by Democrats. Now, the reason we know about this raid is because the former president sent out a note advising what had taken place. It was 340 words.

It was put on his Save America pack. And here's some of the things that he had to say. It is prosecutorial misconduct, the weaponization of the justice system and an attack by radical left Democrats who desperately don't want me to run for president in 2024. He went on to say, what is the difference between this and Watergate, where operatives broke into the Democratic National Committee? Here in reverse, Democrats broke into the home of the 45th president of the United States.

Such an assault could only take place in broken third world countries. And I'll just sort of leave it at this point. One thing he said was they even broke into my safe, guys. Heartbreaking. NBC's Kerry Sanders, thank you so much. Greatly appreciate it. And by the way, it wasn't Democrats who broke in. It was the FBI, the same FBI that probably handed Donald Trump the presidency with their investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails, press conferences where they said that she was politically guilty, but probably not legally guilty. Reopening investigations 10 days before. Yeah, it's that same FBI that even Donald Trump would say helped him get elected president of the United States. Chuck and Chuck Rosenberg. Let's not be distracted by, well, the lies that

Donald Trump and his supporters are spreading right now. Let's just let's talk about the law. What's it mean if you have the FBI going in and searching the home and the business of a former president? How serious is this? Yeah, let's not be distracted, Joe. It's very serious. First of all, let me point out two branches of government are involved in this decision. Right. I mean, you wouldn't let a pitcher call balls and strikes. It wouldn't make sense. So the Justice Department here, its prosecutors and its FBI agents go to the judicial branch of government, to what the Supreme Court has called a neutral and detached magistrate, and ask her to review the search warrant and to sign it. Once she does, you are lawfully permitted into someone's home, into their business, into their hotel room, wherever the search warrant might permit you to enter. So it's all legal. It's all lawful.

It's not a raid. They didn't, they're not there improperly or unlawfully. Is it a big deal? Of course, it's a big deal. We don't know that it's going to result in charges. We don't know that anyone's going to be convicted as a result. But this is literally unprecedented. It hasn't happened. We have never searched the home of a former president. And we only did it because we had probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. This is the Fourth Amendment standard and probable cause to believe that you're going

to find stuff related to that crime evidence in the place you've asked to search. Very big deal, unprecedented, but done lawfully and properly through a neutral and detached judge in another branch of government. This is not the FBI on its own deciding where to go and what to do. Yeah. And Chuck, I understand that the level, the degree of seriousness higher, the standard is higher for federal courts when they issue these sort of search warrants in a lot of state courts. Is that true? Well, the Fourth Amendment applies to state and federal courts, Joe, right? Fourth Amendment is the Fourth Amendment is the Fourth Amendment. It's based on probable cause. But I can tell you this. This would have been the most fly-specked

affidavit for a search warrant in the history of the Department of Justice. It would have been reviewed at the highest levels and multiple times. There are not going to be mistakes in it. They're going to be extraordinarily careful. And then, in addition to that, you have to convince a federal judge that you have probable cause. So, in this case, it was a federal judge in federal court authorizing a federal search warrant. But whether you're in state or federal court, it's the same Fourth Amendment and the same probable cause standard. Yeah, you know, Michael Beschloss, we've spent the past five, six years talking about all of the historic moments that have happened, most of them negative, talking about how

constitutional norms have been breached, how laws have likely been breached, how a president who loses election for the first time calls the secretary of state and gives the secretary of state the number of votes that he needs stolen for him so we can win the state of Georgia. We can go on and on and on. Yesterday, though, another first. And of course, we've been got a tip of the hand maybe from Merrick Garland, who a few weeks ago got quite frustrated with a reporter saying, saying no man is above the law. Doesn't matter whether he's a former president or not. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that. I'm curious your thoughts as a historian seeing this take place,

especially on the anniversary of Richard Nixon's resignation? Well, that anniversary, of course, is just as ironic as it could be. But you can almost hear Donald Trump in his bedroom this morning, pounding on his bedroom door, screaming unfair. And it's not unfair. You know, Mar-a-Lago is a probable crime scene. You know, just as Chuck was saying, you know, those FBI agents didn't go there because they wanted to swim in the pool. They were doing it because there is something serious happening that may have happened there that may have damaged the security of all of us and our families. You know, let's say it was violating the Presidential Records Act,

as it may have been. Security classified documents brought to Mar-a-Lago that should not have been brought there. This is not like a fine for an overdue library book. This is not just making sure there's a menu of some dinners so that historians like me can write about this years from now. This is all of our security. You know, I'm trying to imagine what it might have been, but if we're not even told what these documents were, they could be a document that has information on our nuclear codes, or another document that might list the names of CIA agents in another country or a document that shows how the federal government is going after organized crime organizations. And it's not for Donald Trump to sell these things, to share these things with others. If he does, puts all of us in jeopardy.

The other thing you were talking about, Richard Nixon. Presidential Records Act was passed in 1978. That was in response to Nixon, as you and Mika, I'm sure Mika does from studying ancient history, and you do too, Joe. But in Nixon's case, Nixon made a deal with Gerald Ford, who had good intentions but was a little clueless about how diabolical Nixon could be. And the deal was that Nixon's famous tapes and papers would be flown to California, put in a vault, the archives would get one key to the vault, Nixon would have another key to the vault, and Nixon could legally destroy incriminating or embarrassing evidence that was in that bowl. And Congress found out about this thing. And, you know, in those days, Congress knew the difference between right and wrong.

Even Republicans said, this is a terrible thing. No president should do this, especially the president of Watergate. They passed this presidential records law to say that no future president can just decide, you know, I'll take some documents out if I feel like it. Yeah, I mean, and speaking of Congress and leaders in Congress, back when actually the truth mattered, the law mattered, John Heilman, you had Kevin McCarthy saying that they were going to conduct their investigations and they better preserve their documents. This coming from a guy who is sat by silently as the Secret Service destroyed their documents on January 5th and January 6th. The DOD and the Trump administration destroyed their documents. You talk about Orwellian. You talk about Orwellian. I would say Orwellian for Kevin McCarthy, but he thinks Orwell is a shortstop for the Los Angeles Angels.

So we'll move on from that. But other than this screeching and this howling, talk, John, about your thoughts about the raid, the historic nature of it, and the political impact of it. Well, you know, I can't be more on point than Michael Beschloss is about this and about the historic nature of it. It's obviously one of those things that is, you know, like so many things in the era of Trump, Joe, you know, shocking, but not surprising. You know, you heard this news last night and, you know, can barely believe it. And then as soon as you thought about it, you thought, OK, this isn't just it wasn't just inevitable on some level, but is probably the beginning of a sequence of things like this. Right. We know you went through in your opening read

the number of places in which Donald Trump is under investigation as criminal liability in various jurisdictions and various venues. He's got headquarters and places of either residence or business operation in a number of different places in New York City and New Jersey, in addition to Mar-a-Lago. This was, in some ways, of all the things that we think that he's under investigation for, may have been the one that was the least likely in your mind, if you heard that Trump had been raided, or his home and not raid is obviously the wrong word here, but that a search warrant had been executed in federal and the FBI had shown up to look for for evidence of a crime on the list of things that you think Donald Trump may have committed a crime on. This is one that might not have been at the top of your mind.

So, John, that's a great point. Let me ask you a follow up. Yeah, let me. Great point. Let me ask. Let me follow up on that, because records. I mean, this is this would be on the on the one of the lowest levels when you have the DOJ obviously investigating an attempted fascist coup. Does it suggest perhaps that the DOJ is just rounding everything up and getting their ducks in a row before they file charges against this guy? Well, it may very well suggest that, Joe. There are probably people with the background of working within the DOJ who have a better insight into that than I do, but I certainly think that it suggests that, number one, it suggests that one question we now know the answer to, is Merrick Garland willing

to go across the Rubicon without regard to the rage of Donald Trump, without regard to the way in which the far right and Trump's troops on the far right who are screaming bloody murder on social media right now. We know last night that Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, others on the MAGA right are openly now talking on social media and their channels about not just the kind of insurrection we saw on January 6th, but about armed revolt, about civil war, about trying to take the country by force. We have no idea at this moment how seriously to take all of that, although I would suggest that we should take it very seriously in the sense that, you know, we've already crossed a lot of lines in the world of political violence

and the Trump movement. So, you know, but Merrick Garland looking at all of that and the potential political consequences, which we don't know, will this energize the right in the midterms? Will it energize the part of the Republican Party that wants to be rid of Donald Trump? Will it energize the left when they see Kevin McCarthy previewing the kind of warfare that he's unprincipled, hypocritical, baseless warfare he's going to engage in if Republicans take control of the House? With all of that unknown, but all of it incredibly consequential, we now know the Attorney General

of the United States said, I don't care. I think there's probable cause of a crime here, and I'm going to go to a court, and I'm going to ask for a court, as Chuck just laid out, to approve this warrant. And I think that bodes very ill for Donald Trump, because anybody who thinks that now, who thinks that Merrick Garland doesn't have the stomach for this fight, I think it's not prima facie evidence that he will file charges against Donald Trump, but it's prima facie evidence that he is focused on the law. As he said all along, that he would prosecute anybody involved in the January 6th insurrection at any level. This is a much smaller thing, and yet he's willing to incur all of those political consequences and all that wrath.

If I'm Donald Trump right now, I'm getting ready for raids at other locations, and I'm getting ready for a very rapid progress of the chain reaction. But you can imagine a lot of things starting to happen very fast on a variety of legal fronts right now if this is the attitude that Merrick Garland has towards this case. I think that's a really great insight in terms of like, this is just the beginning and it's going to be, they're going to be going over this with a fine tooth comb. Jackie Alimany, you've been covering January 6th and many people who have already gone to jail due to what happened at January 6th at the Capitol. What are your thoughts on this, given all of your knowledge of the investigation on the January 6th insurrection? Yeah, Mika, well, it is something that sort of took us all by surprise, although we have known for quite some time now, since we first broke the story in February, of the former president's improper handling of his presidential records,

that there was a grand jury convened and that the FBI was investigating it. That being said, they have since then kept this investigation under very, very, very tight wraps, so much so that we don't even know the federal judge that signed and executed and is overseeing this investigation and signed off on the search warrant. But this could have just as serious legal repercussions as Michael Beschloss touched on briefly. Even if there is just one portion or one page of classified information that was improperly handled, it could cost the American government hundreds and millions of dollars, American lives, entire military operation. Of course, it's still extremely

unclear what exactly the FBI was looking for when they searched the former president's home yesterday. But what we know so far is that based on the boxes that were already retrieved from Mar-a-Lago earlier this year, that first of all, the former president was extremely reticent to give that information up, that there was extended back and forth between the National Archives and Trump's counsel about handing them over. And when an inventory was done, as we reported last night, there was over a 100-page inventory that details the unclassified information that was given over. And if that inventory was done in the same manner for the classified information, we've been told that it's around three pages of the unclassified inventory of the classified information, because, of course,

sometimes things are so classified that they need to be unclassified to be able to even just be described. Michael Steele, listening. Sorry, Mika. Michael Steele, listening to this conversation this morning and surfing through the news last night and absorbing what happened yesterday in Mar-a-Lago, I'm wondering when a search warrant is issued, it's my understanding, a federal search warrant, the items that they're looking for have to be listed on the search warrant. So it will be interesting to get a peek at that if and when they do release the search warrant. But the second element here is what we began with, the anniversary of Richard Nixon's resignation from the presidency, an epic moment in American history, no doubt. But the important point now that becomes, I think, more important with today's reality is that Richard Nixon, despite what he had done, despite his criminality, he left office.

We are now in the middle of an extended administration, a forever administration, if you will. It will not go away. It does not go away. It does not go away. And it's bolstered in part by your former party, Joe's former party, the Republican Party, and especially the rhetoric issued last night and all day today. And as John Heilman pointed out on social media, Kevin McCarthy and a lot of other Republicans indicting the Justice Department rather than focusing on the criminality of a former president of the United States. I'm wondering what you absorbed from yesterday. You know, the shock and awe of all of this doesn't really impact on me the way it has some who are, you know, profoundly moved by the historic moment of it.

And certainly it is important. What it says to me is, and you really put your finger on several aspects of this, Mike. And one of them is how a party so craven and beholden, so out of step with reality and the American people, still clings desperately to a former twice impeached president of the United States who has been and continues to be under criminal investigation for his acts, his acts. We are here because Donald Trump has brought us here. And yet you have Kevin McCarthy and others tripping over themselves to get in front of cameras to go after the Justice Department, the legal system. You have his minions out there declaring, as our colleague and friend Ben Collins from NBC News is reporting, the dangerous rhetoric that is being fomented

because of this, because of how Trump talks about a raid on his home. No, man, it was no raid on your home. You were asked to deliver documents that didn't belong to you. They belong to the people of the United States through the federal government. You refused to turn those documents over. A duly developed and executed warrant was put in place. And agents came to your home to retrieve the documents. It's not complicated because anybody on this set had done the same thing. The exact same result would have occurred. And Kevin McCarthy would

not be in front of a not putting out tweets and putting out papers, talking, telling the Justice Department, we, you know, get your act together, clear your calendar. We're going to investigate you for doing their job. So that part of this for me, Mike and Joe and Mika, are an essential element here that we've got to figure out how to work around because this thing that this GOP represents under its current leadership is now increasingly more dangerous than it's ever been. And that is profoundly important to understand right now. You know why? Because they're fascists, like people that are making the threats, the people that helped Donald Trump on January 6th,

the people that were talking about coming to D.C., that it was going to be crazy, that it was going to be wild, they were going to charge the cap, they're fascists. And so they're making fascist threats, and we need to do what the United States has always done. We need to confront fascism and defeat it. So everybody that's freaking out over fascists being fascists, well, guess what? That's what fascists do. That's why we have law enforcement to actually bring fascists to justice.

So please don't run around with your hair on fire and say, oh, my God, we can't actually enforce the laws of our land. We can't actually protect classified documents because fascists may get upset on a TV show. It's what they do. And, you know, it's so interesting, Michael Steele, just like a week or two ago, because the attacks from the Republicans on the FBI had stopped for a little while. I actually I wrote something thanking the FBI for their service to America and expressing shock that my former party had spent the past five years after being staunch defenders of the FBI my entire adult life, trashing the FBI because they nominated somebody who had so little respect for the rule of law. But here we are again. We've got Republicans again slandering the FBI, just like we have Republicans who claimed

to support the blue, fly flag supporting the blue. And yet they trashed Capitol Hill cops, accused them of being actors, of being drama queens when they almost died. Several of them almost died. And a couple actually did die after January 6th. And their family certainly thinks it's related. So they attack cops on Capitol Hill when a fascist attempt to take over the Capitol fails. They attack military heroes and they have for the past several years. fascist attempt to take over the Capitol fails. They attack military heroes and they have for the past several years. They've attacked military heroes and the head of America's military for not being sufficiently loyal to the fascist president in his attempt to launch a fascist takeover of American democracy. Fox News, my God, they even say the Fox News actually says that the United States military was going to bring helicopters from Afghanistan that they used on terrorists in Afghanistan to attack Americans who voted for Donald Trump. This is where they are.

And the fact that people, weak people, are running around going, oh, what are we going to do? They're saying ugly things on Fox News. What do you expect? Like, this guy's going to be brought to justice. He's broken the law. Everybody knows that so why are they freaking out i don't come from the obi-wan kenobi school

of of political theory strike trump down and he only becomes stronger no i don't believe you break the law you go to jail let me say it in america in America. And our former Republican brothers and sisters need to understand this in America, even in the age of Trump. No man is above the law. Michael Steele. Amen, brother. I can't I can't I can't say better than that. And I just I just put a coda on that, Joe. This is the question for Kevin McCarthy. So what is your what is your response to the Trump influencers, the Trump acolytes and the Trump supporters out there who are tweeting tomorrow is war. Sleep well. So if something comes on the heels of this, Mr. McCarthy, because you've now tried to indict the FBI through your particular postings, telling them to get their, you know, clear their calendars and keep all documents. Well,

they do because unlike Trump, they know what the law requires them to do. They're not going to try to put this this warrant in a box and put it in a closet somewhere from no one to see. So what's going to be your response if these idiots go out and start showing their behind and acting up in a violent manner? Are you going to take responsibility then for from your tweets and your posture because that's what joe's talking about because when you think you are above the law or more importantly support someone you believe to be above the law this is the consequence and the result so you don't get to walk away from this because you put out a press release and, you know, you got MAGA World. Oh, Kevin, great. Wonderful. Thank you, Kevin. No, you are in leadership, duly elected, and you're now responsible for the actions that come on the heels of your rhetoric, your actions and Trump's and his supporters.

You ready for that? Because that's the America you're signing up for. Tomorrow is war. Sleep well. Wow. Hey, Michael Beschloss Heilman here. I'm thinking about all the things that Joe and Michael Steele are talking about and looking for some historic precedent because with respect to the Republican Party, right? I'm thinking about, you know, that we've seen the ways, I've been hesitant throughout the last months to talk about a GOP civil war, because it doesn't seem to me like so far, like we've seen a civil war. We've seen some fractures in Donald Trump's, in the loyalty to Donald Trump. We certainly have seen some parts of the Republican

Party wanting to move on from Donald Trump. But I do think the more that these kinds of things take place, the signs of Trump's criminality become clearer. As Joe says, if he has broken the law, and we think probably he has, that consequences will be meted out. As he stirs up and Kevin McCarthy stirs up some of that kind of insurrectionist, violent rhetoric that we're seeing right now, there is going to be this pressure building on the Republican coalition. Those Republicans who are, you know, they might say they like Donald Trump, they like what he did, they want to give him a gold watch, but they don't think he's the future of the party. We've seen that rising part of the party in recent months. That part is going to get more and more eager to move on, maybe without denouncing Donald Trump, but they want to move on to

something else. And then this other part of the party, this militant part of the party, that really is talking about civil war and fighting the fascists who want to fight until the last dog dies for Donald Trump. Historically, Michael, talk about how parties break apart in these moments. What is it that pushes, how a party gets pushed past the breaking point and splinters? And what happens then? Because I think in some ways, that is kind of where we are inevitably going. I don't know exactly when, but it seems like the kind of that that's the trajectory that we're on, especially if Donald Trump's legal circumstances get worse, as it looks like they will. uh, to a great extent because three Republican leaders, Goldwater, Hugh Scott, and John Rhodes went to the White House and said, if there's a Senate trial for your impeachment, you're not going to get more than 10 or 15 votes. That's why Nixon went. His party leaders said the rule of law

is more important to us than loyalty to you, Richard Nixon. Here we are in 2022. What is the idea that probably will divide Republicans if this all comes to pass? It is. There will still be some traditional Republicans who revere the rule of law, who are real conservatives, want to preserve our institutions. And there are others who are radicals like Kevin McCarthy, who is behaving like Donald Trump's ventriloquist dummy, blessing anything that Donald Trump does and criticizing the federal government for enforcing the rule of law. Maybe Liz Cheney will be the Theodore Roosevelt of 1912, run as an independent, divide Republicans between those who say the rule of law is less important to me than Donald Trump and those who say the opposite. All right, Chuck Rosenberg, as we close out here, before we get to the news, I just want your final thoughts on where this stands right now and where you think this may proceed in

the near future. Obviously, we're waiting to see who the judge was and what perhaps the reasoning was for this. Sure. And that will be interesting. At some point, Mika, the search warrant will be unsealed and the inventory of what was taken will be filed in open court. So we should look for that. But here, I think, is an important thing to consider. It's really easy and somewhat cowardly to attack a search warrant in the FBI and social media. If Mr. Trump and his minions think there's some flaw in the search warrant or some flaw in the process or the

affidavit was improvidently granted, then you know what they can do? They can go to court and challenge it. So let's see if they actually go to court and challenge it. And let me take that a step further. Let's see if they go to court, actually challenge it and prevail, because other than doing that, it's all just words. There is a place for redress. It's United States District Court, federal court. And if they think there's really a problem, that's where you articulate the problem and challenge the warrant. My guess is that they will not challenge it in court. And if they do, my guess is they will not prevail. This was the most carefully drafted search warrant, I suppose, in Department of Justice history. And attacking it on social media is very different than attacking

it in federal court. So let's see what they do next. You know, you know, it's interesting, Mika, this conversation is fascinating in many ways. One thing is we look at Moralago from overhead. What's so incredible is that you have all of these news organizations and politicians who understand that right now, America is pouring over things that were said before January 6th. Irresponsible, reckless statements that were made by political leaders, that were made by podcasters, that were made by cable news hosts, that were made by administration officials, that led to a fascist riot and an attempted takeover of the United States of America. And here you have, in the middle of all this, knowing how the story ends, you once again have political leaders,

cable news hosts, and people online who are fomenting violence, who are talking about civil war, who are talking about the possibility of an armed insurrection starting. And it's from the usual suspects. They're at it again, despite the fact that one after another, after another fascist who tried to lead an insurrection or run an insurrection on January 6th are spending time in jail. When will they ever learn? When will they ever? I guess never. I'm just curious. Are you going to have, I don't know, media outlets who are already facing exposure, a billion dollar exposure for spreading lies about the election and allowing lies to be spread on

the network about the insurrection who are trying to brush off any responsibility for the fascist riot on January 6th? Are they really walking into yet another fascist trap? Are they really enabling once again? How will Facebook react? How will Twitter react? How will Fox News react? How will other pro Trump TV channels react? How will other pro Trump podcasts react? Are they going to speak out against these calls for civil war and violence? Are they going to find themselves in more legal trouble as we move forward? We'll see. But it doesn't appear that they're very quick on the uptake. No, it definitely does not. Chuck Rosenberg, thank you so much for coming on this

morning. The same to Michael Beschloss. Thank you. And Jackie Alimany, we always appreciate your coverage. Thank you, all of you. And before we go to break, some of the other stories making headlines this morning. The U.S. is sending an additional $1 billion in military aid to Ukraine. The Pentagon announced yesterday the new shipment includes tens of thousands more rounds of ammunition and explosives, the largest such package since Russia invaded Ukraine in February. Severe weather and staff shortages are hampering U.S. flights this week. Another 500 canceled flights yesterday, following more than 1,500 cancellations this past weekend. The majority impacted hubs in New York and Chicago.

Demand for air travel has returned to pre-pandemic levels, while airlines struggle with staffing shortages, among other issues. And voters head to the polls today in the battleground state of Wisconsin, where the Republican gubernatorial primary has become a political proxy contest between former President Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence. Businessman Tim Michaels has Trump's endorsement, while former Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Clayfish has the backing of Pence. An Emerson College poll last week showed the two candidates in a statistical tie. We will be covering that and still ahead on Morning Joe.

We have much more on the FBI's search of former President Trump's home in Florida, including the possible punishment if he was holding on to classified documents. Plus, a look at the response from some of Trump's most radical supporters. Many of them are online talking about getting, quote, locked and loaded. Really? Hey, FBI, take a look at these these people who are talking about civil war. I mean, we've got to be we've got to be very aggressive against people who are fomenting political violence, talking about political violence. We've seen what happens when our law enforcement agencies sit back and do nothing. And what happened happened on January 6th because of it. And also ahead this morning, we'll be joined by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is fresh off her trip to Taiwan. Obviously, we'll ask her about that and the Inflation Reduction Act that's headed to the House floor.

And also the latest breaking news overnight. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Beautiful shot of New York City as the sun comes up over the Big Apple. A lot of news to cover today. Tensions between China and Taiwan are escalated as China continues military drills for a sixth day near the self-governed island of Taiwan. Beijing began the drills last Thursday after promising Taiwan would pay a price for hosting U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. When asked if he was worried about China's response to Pelosi's visit, President Biden said he was not. I'm not worried, but I'm concerned that they're moving as much as they are. But I

don't think they're going to do anything more. Joining us now, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. He's the author of the forthcoming book, The Bill of Obligations, The Ten Habits of Good Citizens, which I just love. And we'll get to that in just a moment. But Richard, first, your questions about Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan. Do you think she should have done it? What were the considerations? Look, Mika, I think it's a fair question whether her trip was, quote unquote, worth it or warranted, but it was nothing new. It wasn't a fundamental departure. Newt Gingrich went when he was Speaker of the House. Cabinet members have gone. I think the real question, the real conversation, what to move from the Speaker to China. This is an enormous reaction. This was planned for

months, if not years. It's far, far out of proportion to anything that Nancy Pelosi did. So what we ought to be talking about is what is China doing? Why? I think in no small part, it's a reaction to what's the deterioration of the Chinese economy. It's something of a distraction as Xi Jinping tries to get an unprecedented third term. I think it's meant to intimidate Taiwan, the United States, Japan and others. And now we ought to be talking about what do we do about it? Because what China has done is they've established a new baseline. They have basically put into right now they've got these exercises which look an awful lot like a blockade, not quite a blockade, which would be an act of war. But what they're basically telling Taiwan is all the old red lines, we're crossing them.

We are now in a position to essentially put a blockade or potentially even worse to use force against you. And this is meant to intimidate them, to intimidate us. So we ought to be having a serious reaction. Are we prepared to let China do this or do we need to start taking steps now so China will not have this option or will at least be deterred from taking this option? This is a big, big development, which far transcends anything Nancy Pelosi did. Well, I was going to say, of course, Gingrich went there. I went there with with a lot of members of Congress. No big deal at all. Nobody mentioned it. As Nancy Pelosi said, maybe it's because she's a woman. Who knows? Maybe the Chinese are especially offended by that.

But you are right. I mean, it seems that she's trying to distract from having a weak economy, a crazy covid policy, from screwing up horribly when it comes to Hong Kong being the vibrant economic center of Asia, one political setback across the world after another. But Richard, all that being said, China showed its hand a bit, have they not? What can we learn from what China has done over the past couple of days and by showing their hand to us and the rest of the world? I think we've learned two things, Joe. One is that I actually think the Chinese have given up on the idea of peaceful reunification. This has been their mantra for decades. Over the years, the gap between Taiwan and the mainland has actually grown. Taiwan's a dynamic, democratic society and

economy. China's more and more repressive, more statist. And I think what the Chinese on the mainland have essentially concluded, whether they admit it or not, that their only way forward is through coercion. They no longer can lure Taiwan there. Indeed, that's also the lesson of Hong Kong. The whole idea that you could have one country and two systems and the two could coexist inside China, that's dead. That is dead. So what I think we've basically learned is China is on a different trajectory now. We better take it seriously. We've also learned a lot about their military capabilities, which have grown. I don't think we should exaggerate them.

China has no experience fighting a modern war. Not one general in China, think about it, has fought a war. China, right now, we don't know what their capabilities are, but we've learned from this. And we ought to, again, take it seriously. We ought to be prepared not just for invasions of Taiwan, an amphibious invasion, which would be incredibly difficult to mount, but also basically blockade. So this to us ought to be a learning experience. And the real question is, are we prepared to not just learn, but act? And that's up to us, to Taiwan and to Japan. All right, Richard, before we close here, I just would love to hear a little

bit about the book. I know it's forthcoming, but it sounds like something we need during these times. Well, thanks, Mickey. Yeah, I mean, so much of the conversation in this country is all about rights. And obviously, rights are central to the American experience. We do have the Bill of Rights. But rights alone are not enough. A democracy also needs a foundation of obligations. What we owe to one another, what we owe to the government. Look at your news story today. The obligations we have as citizens, among other things, to put the country first, among other things, not to turn to violence when we don't get our way politically. And what worries me is in our conversation, I don't hear anybody talking about obligations. And we've got to rebalance American democracy between rights and obligations.

And if we don't, I'm worried that American democracy will not survive in any recognizable form. And if it doesn't, our ability to play any role on the world's seed will disappear. So I actually think the stakes are enormous. And I think the next couple of years will truly be among the most critical in American history. The forthcoming book is The Bill of Obligations, The Ten Habits of Good Citizens. Richard Haass, thank you. Congratulations on this. We really look forward to it. And still ahead, more on the implications of the FBI search of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate. Plus, the former president's alleged mishandling of White House records has also been part of the case being laid

out by the January 6th committee. A member of the panel, Congressman Jamie Raskin, joins the conversation. Also ahead, we'll go live to Wisconsin, where voters today will choose a Republican nominee for governor who could reshape how elected elections are conducted in the marquee battleground state. Morning Joe will be right back.