Morning Joe - Morning Joe 9/11/23

Episode Date: September 11, 2023

The Morning Joe panel discusses the latest in U.S. and world news, politics, sports and culture.

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Monday, September 11th. That is a live look at Ground Zero as we commemorate the September 11th attacks on this country 22 years later. We'll show you this morning's live events from New York to Arlington to Pennsylvania and speak with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and chief of the National Guard Bureau, General Dan Hilkinson, on what has changed. Also this morning, President Biden is heading back from his overseas trip. We'll discuss the key takeaways from the G20 summit. Plus, Mark Meadows loses his fight to move his Georgia elections case to federal court. What this now means for the other co-defendants, including Trump, who want to make the same move. This is we're learning more about how a special grand jury in Georgia had also recommended charging dozens more, including Senator Lindsey Graham. We'll show you how the

South Carolina Republican is responding and get analysis on that expanded list. Those people weren't indicted. With us, we have the host of way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, U.S. Special Correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kaye, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass is with us, and the president of the National Action Network and host of MSNBC's Politics Nation, Reverend Al Sharpton joins us. There's a lot to get to, I will say at least, in New York. Last night, yesterday, a lot of people looking at the U.S. Open and the day before. Oh, my gosh. Coco Gauff.

That was incredible. My daughter and I watched together, and we were just at the edge of our seat. She looked like she was down for the count. She looked tired in the first and second and then the third set. My God. Came roaring back in the second set, third set. And really, yeah, really, really inspirational. Richard Haas, you're our golf expert. Why don't you talk about tennis? Same sport, right?

Yeah, almost. The ball moves a little bit differently. Look, she was fantastic, incredibly. The first set, she almost didn't play, though, as you said. The points were decided on her opponent's unforced errors and so forth. Second set was a transition. Third set was dominant. And then yesterday, the men's file to watch Djokovic.

Again, the second set was unbelievable. It was a marathon set. Just fantastic tennis. But again, 24 grand slams. So you had the statement by the existing greatest player, some might say, of all time. And she's the rising star. So I thought it was a fantastic weekend of tennis. And I want to thank you for not raising football. Yeah, there we go. I will not. I will not raise football. It has to hurt for you so badly. But yeah, Jonathan O'Meara, I mean, you again, you had you had the rise of the new and then the celebration for there may be the greatest of all time, 24 titles. And Djokovic pushed to the wall in an extraordinary second set tiebreaker.

You could really tell after he got through that that he was heading for his 24th title. Yeah, Djokovic certainly nowhere near as beloved as Federer or Nadal, his contemporaries, but he's just relentless, and that's his defining characteristic. He just doesn't stop. He keeps coming. He keeps coming. He keeps coming. He makes you beat yourself. And once he survived that second set and his opponent threw all he could at him, the third set was a coronation. And the stats are going to speak for themselves. Djokovic, though 36, certainly still has a few years left. He's going to put away that record for career Grand Slams for men where probably no one's going to be able to reach it anytime soon.

But let's just say, let's be clear, though. The story of the weekend was Coco Gauff. She is the star of New York City. She was extraordinary. She lit up this entire tournament. She had a scare in her very first match where she fell behind and had to rally in the third set. I saw her in the round of 16.

I was there at the U.S. Open when she beat a terrific opponent in third set, three sets. And this was a moment, a Saturday night there in New York. And there's wonderful video going around that she had attended the U.S. Open as a child, as a fan. They show her dancing in the crowd. And here a decade later or so, she wins her first Grand Slam and surely not her last. Well, you know, Mika, what I thought was so beautiful about it is, again, a new champion is crowned. It's so exciting. And at a tournament, we're really the spirit of Billie Jean King.

Just permeated the whole tournament, made it so joyful. And I know Billie Jean was cheering for her every step of the way. When she got handed the prize money, she said, thank you, Billie Jean, for making this possible. Isn't that unbelievable? Such an incredible moment. So many incredible moments. Coco Gauff, Katty Kay. She's a new generation of young women who speak for themselves.

If you watch her interactions with her coaches, her male coaches, even she pushes back and tells them to back off when she knows what she's, that she's got it. And there were just so many incredible moments on that court. But I loved when she thanked the people who didn't believe in her at the end when she got her trophy. It was awesome. I loved that. She took on the haters and she did it with such class.

And she made a point of doing it right. She went for the microphone and said, I've got one more thing I need to say. And she's had, of course, so many detractors and critics as everybody who is in the public eye, particularly a young black woman, will have had a ton of them. And she took them on and she did it in, you know, and she did it with this win. Not only did she take them on in words, she took them on right now when she won that tournament. You know, I felt this is it's the new generation. We talk about this in politics at the moment a lot about the old guard and the new guard. But Carlos Alcaraz, who didn't make it into the finals, but is clearly the next generation of men's tennis as well. And we're going to be seeing a lot more of him.

And between Coco Goff and Carlos Alcaraz, I think he's 19 as well. I mean, we have right there. We have Coco Goff and we have Carlos, and they're going to be the next generation of tennis players. And it's exciting to see. And even Djokovic at Wimbledon acknowledged that, that this is the moment when we're passing the baton to the next generation. No doubt. I think it's 20.

And think about Coco also. So, so graceful. Yes, she pushed back against the haters, but she was so graceful through The entire process. So grateful to her parents, to her family, to her coaches, to the people of New York. Just beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. And before we go on, I just got to say, we can't let this go because, again, it's... What? Well, Jonathan Lemire, we're not going to bring Richard in last night.

Last night was just ugly. Quite a remarkable opening weekend for the NFL. We'll get through it all. I mean, the Browns just absolutely dominating the Bengals right up there. But, boy, last night, the Giants just got absolutely pounded. Yeah, this is a year the Giants come into it with a lot of expectations. In the playoffs last year, picked to go far this year. And this was over and over fast.

And it was ugly. The final score is 40 to nothing. We just saw right there a field goal blocked. Run back for a touchdown. A pick six soon there followed. This was never a game. The Cowboys smoked the Giants there at home. Tonight, of course, Monday Night Football also here in New York.

Aaron Rodgers makes his debut at the Jets. But you're right. It was fun to have football back. Statements made by the 49ers. The Browns really thumped the Bengals. Joe Burrow does not seem 100%. My Patriots gave the Eagles a game, but couldn't pull off the big plays at the end when they needed it. And, yeah, and then even the Atlanta Falcons.

Yes, the Atlanta Falcons, Joe Scarborough. That's right. Hope you want to know. Jack Scarborough and I were there. Can't believe it. And saw the Falcons. He really wanted to get up. It was a late night.

Get up to Atlanta and wanted to see the debut of Bryce Young, who did fairly well. But whether you're talking about Mac Jones or Bryce Young or my Alabama Crimson Tide, not a great week, but to an incredible week. I guess the first 30 minutes of our show is probably enough for sports. Yes, enough. Actually, football intersected with politics over the weekend. Here's our segue. So the rivalry, a college football rivalry was injected with even more bitterness over the weekend when the two front runners for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination both showed up at the game. On Saturday, both former President Donald Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis attended the contest between Iowa and Iowa State. Trump sat in a private suite and was greeted with cheers, but also notably some boos and insulting gestures when he at one point waved to the crowd. Well, he waved back, but not the way he would have wanted him to wave back.

Yeah, no, we won't. Don't show it. We won't go into detail. DeSantis, meanwhile, sat in the stands with Iowa's Republican Governor Kim Reynolds, who he said would consider for vice president if he wins the nomination. Both candidates also tried to win over Iowans outside the stadium, tailgating with fans before the game. So there you go. Donald Trump took to truth social to voice his frustration.

He was angry. Angry old man. Yeah, no, it was about a recent poll that asked voters about what he called his age and mentality. The former president wrote in a phony, probably rigged Wall Street Journal poll coming out of nowhere to soften the mental incompetence blow that is so obvious with crooked Joe Biden. They ask about my age and mentality. Where did that come from? Well, a few years ago, we could we could play you about an hour worth of clips. We would not have enough time. So you're trying to walk down the stage at West Point. We could play you about an hour worth of clips to show you where it came from. If we would not have enough time.

Show you trying to walk down the stage at West Point. I digress. I continue. A few years ago, I was the only one to agree to a mental acuity test. Dude, you said horse, cow, woman, pig, camera or something. And aced it. The fact that you call that acing it shows just how wobbly things must be for you. And then he added now that the globalists at Fox and the Wall Street Journal

have failed to push their third tier candidate to success, they do this. Well, I hereby challenge Rupert Murdoch and sons Biden Wall Street Journal heads to acuity tests. That would not work out well for Donald Trump on so many levels. Rev, I'm so glad. I'm so glad that this Alex put this angry, put this here, because two things. First of all, I want you to talk about how unmoored Donald Trump is, continues to be, and now calling Rupert Murdoch and Fox News globalists. But secondly, I went to all these links last night that said Joe Biden crazy as hell, looks like him. The howling at them of Joe Biden, sleepy Joe, Joe this, Joe that.

Vietnam, you know, I figured he was going to be tired in Vietnam. That's not a shock. I said before he left, India, Vietnam, I'm not so sure. So I looked at it and, you know, at this point, they're just making ass up. They're just making stuff up. You know, he's tired. And then he goes, I go into bed. Again, it's like now, no matter what the guy does, they're going to have these screaming

headlines saying that he's out of it and crazy when it's just the opposite. And then you got then you got. Yeah. Then you had Donald Trump howling at the moon saying crazy stuff every day. It's like, I don't know. I talked to a lot of people over the past week or so. They don't they don't they're not thrilled about either side, but it's not like they're going Biden's crazy and Trump is all there. It's just kind of the opposite. It is exactly the opposite. The advantage that Trump has is when you start off a little strange, it's harder to gauge that you've gotten stranger. I mean, we we we look at Biden, who has started off novel and start saying, is he acting off? Trump started off. So it's harder

for people to catch up with how off he's really gotten because he was never really that stable and centered in the first place as we would judge being stable and centered. And then for him now to just pick fights with people that really helped to create his candidacy in 16, Wall Street Journal, Fox News. I mean, it's like a child, which also gives you concerns about is he losing his balance even more than he already was off balance. It's like a child. Anybody that says anything, it just is a incites him to start playing childish games and goes off. I think that we have concern. If I were in the Republican Party, I'd be concerned about Donald Trump, not because of his age, but because of where his mind has always been. It's all about him, only about him. And he can't help himself. You know, and really quickly, we want to get we got Chuck Rosenberg here want to go to Chuck and talk about a lot of things that are happening in the court cases.

I do want to talk first, Jonathan O'Meara, about the fact that we're all talking about next year, 2024. And, you know, a lot of hand wringing, as James Carville said, a lot of bedwetting on his plastic bed sheets. But but you have a Republican Party that really is. It's just split. It's splintered. Yes. Fifty percent have a Republican Party that really is. It's just split. It's splintered. Yes. Fifty percent of Republicans support Donald Trump. Great. That's 50 percent that don't. And then you've got this war with Fox News. I mean, you know, I talked to somebody this weekend, again, a supporter of Trump. And we were talking and I say, you know, then they let me know. They watch Newsmax. That's where they get all their news. It's now news. But there's just these splinters and divisions. And we

have a guy who wants to be the Republican nominee who is trashing Fox News every day. Again, Fox News, they'll get by, you know, other people will get by. But I'm just saying when you have a Republican Party that is that splintered, Donald Trump dividing it right down the middle, it doesn't bode well for next year. I don't care what everybody says. Yeah, Trump is making the bet that he's bigger than Fox, that he doesn't need Fox. And that's a risky bet to make. We know what power they have wielded for such a long time.

And it's true. They were supportive eventually of Trump in 2016. They were all in on 2020. And they've kind of gone back and forth here. Like he has. They certainly seem to be flirting with the candidacy of Ron DeSantis for a while as that has stalled. Looking at their coverage, analysts say it's pretty it's warmed up to Trump again for the most part. But that's not good enough for Trump. Trump wants simply almost a Kim Jong-un-esque chorus of just nothing but support at all times. So therefore, if there's any even slightly dissenting voice, and he singles out in these posts a particular piece in the Wall Street Journal, the occasional anchor in Fox News, if they're not just giving him lavish praise at

all times, that's not good enough. And he goes scorched earth against them. And to your point, that's dangerous a little bit here as he is far ahead in the primaries. And even a fractured Republican Party seems at this moment on track to renominate him. But as we go into next year, he can't afford to lose any support. We know how close next year's election is going to be. We talk often about how President Biden can't afford to lose these small margins, whether because of voters of color or those who might be attracted to a more liberal third party candidate. But that applies to Trump, too.

Trump doesn't have a margin of error either. He would need every single vote he can. And if he's turning off some Republicans, if he doesn't get that full throat endorsement of Fox News next time around, that could, to your point, Joe, absolutely come back and hurt. We're going to turn now to Fulton County, Georgia, where Mark Meadows has lost his bid to move the criminal case against him to federal court. That's not good news for any of us. For Trump or anybody, yeah. The judge ruled on Friday that Meadows' alleged involvement in efforts to pressure state officials to overturn the 2020 election results was not part of his official duties as White House chief of staff. According to a court filing, the judge found the actions, quote, at the heart of the state's

charges against Meadows were taken on behalf of the Trump campaign with the ultimate goal of affecting state election activities and procedures. Meadows has already notified to the court that he plans to appeal. He'll lose. I mean, because this is obvious, he'll lose all the way up. In his ruling, the judge did say the decision does not have any effect on the outcome of other co-defendants seeking to move their cases to federal court. Last week, attorneys for former President Trump said he might seek to do so as well, move the case to federal court. Right. But it also is just I mean, with Trump, anything to delay. But again, this is this is far from presidential duties, what they're doing here in Georgia. It's just the opposite, which is why the case is being brought by the charges being brought against everybody. Let's

bring in former U.S. attorney and senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg. Chuck, first of all, give us your take on the decision by the judge and how it may impact the other defendants. Yeah, I read Judge Jones's decision, Joe. I thought it was thoughtful and thorough. I think it is probably impervious on appeal, although that may turn in some part on the panel you draw in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. But as a matter of fact, and as a matter of law, to your point, Mark Meadows was acting outside the scope of his official duties as the White House chief of staff. That means when he seeks to remove his case to federal court, he loses. So, you know, I never thought it was a frivolous attempt by Mr. Meadows to remove the case. He has lots of reasons why he would want to do so. But I didn't think it was going to prevail. It didn't. I think Judge

Jones was right to say that I'll listen to anyone who wants to make a similar motion, and I'll judge each case on its merits. But I think by and large, it's going to be hard for other state defendants to get their cases removed to federal court because of the way Jones reasoned. Again, I thought it was thorough and thoughtful. And I think it sort of bodes poorly for other people who are going to make a similar claim. So, Chuck, you seem to be suggesting then that it's going to be difficult for Donald Trump. I know there are a bunch of others, two of those defendants who are also trying to do the same thing, but it would make it difficult for Donald Trump to have his case moved to federal court,

which would have multiple advantages for him in terms of the juror pool and his potential to pardon himself later on. Can you just answer that, but also whether we're going to get some sense this week in hearings about the timing of the Georgia case? Sure, Katie. So lots of good questions there. Number one, it's a little bit different for Mr. Trump because by definition, by statute, the president and the vice president are not covered by the Hatch Act, the federal provision that precludes political activity by people on the federal government payroll. So the factual posture of his case is going to be a little bit different. I still think what he tried to do was outside the scope of his duties as a federal official, and I think he loses. By the way, two things,

one about the jury pool and one about pardons. The jury pool in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, the federal division, is not all that different than the jury pool in Fulton County. A little more red, a little more diverse, but it is not all that different. And I wouldn't make too much of it because I think juries, in my experience, can be selected by a good judge to be fair and thoughtful and to follow the facts and apply the law. That's one thing. Second thing, even if Mr. Trump gets his case into federal court, it remains a state case. And I know that sounds weird. It simply would be a state case tried in federal court. And so were he convicted? And if he were reelected as president, right now, two big ifs, he could not pardon himself because it's still at its roots, a state charge and a state conviction.

So lots of things to play out. Still early innings here, Cady. But I do think Judge Jones's opinion does not bode well for other people seeking to remove their cases to federal court. Yeah. And there's a lot more to this story to cover this morning, including a Lindsey Graham connection to the Fulton County case. We're going to get to that. Chuck, if you could please stay with us, we'll need you for that. Also still ahead on Morning Joe, it is a desperate race to find survivors after a devastating earthquake damaged homes and buildings across Morocco, leaving thousands dead. We'll have the very latest on the ongoing rescue operations. Plus, a top GOP lawmaker criticizes Senator Tommy Tuberville's ongoing military blockade. We'll show you those new remarks and talk about whether other Republicans will finally speak out. Also ahead,

new developments in the search for an escaped inmate in Pennsylvania, where police say he's been spotted and what he may look like now. And in our fourth hour of Morning Joe, Walter Isaacson joins us with his latest biography on Elon Musk, one of the most influential and controversial figures in the world today. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Twenty seven past the hour live look at Capitol Hill as the sun is yet to come up over Washington. So the report from the special grand jury that investigated the 2020 election interference case in Fulton County reveals charges were recommended for almost two dozen additional people, including South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham.

Graham, along with former Georgia Senators David Perdue, Kelly Loeffler, and Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn were among those who the special grand jury recommended for indictment but were never charged. Graham was investigated by Fulton County Prosecutor Fannie Willis over two phone calls he made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his staff after the 2020 election. Raffensperger claims Graham suggested his office had the power to reject certain absentee ballots. But Graham insists that he was only trying to understand the process for verifying ballot signatures in Georgia. What I did was consistent with my job as being a United States senator. I asked him questions about the mail-in voting process. I never asked him to set aside ballots or anything

else. After the conversation, I decided it was best for me to vote to certify the election. If it ever becomes impossible or politically dangerous or legally dangerous for a United States senator to call up people to find out how the election was run, God help us all. The next election, if I have questions, I'll do the same thing. God help us all if we have United States senators like Lindsey Graham who feel free to call up. In the words of Trump supporting Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, suggesting that he not count certain absentee votes that would hurt Donald, that would hurt Joe Biden. Again, let's be very

clear here. You had Brad Raffensperger, a guy who voted for Trump in 16 and 20. Brad Raffensperger, who, again, Republican through and through his entire life. Brad Raffensperger, a guy who voted for Trump in 16 and 20. Brad Raffensperger, who, again, Republican through and through his entire life. Brad Raffensperger, who won the Republican primary in a landslide in 2020, saying Lindsey Graham called up, tried to rig the ballot, tried to get him to throw out some absentee votes to try to help Donald Trump. So let's not do this whole God help us. I mean, if a senator from out of state can't call another state and talk to a secretary of state and ask that secretary of state to disallow legal votes, God help. Yeah, Lindsay, God help us. If there are more senators who think

like you and who do things like that in the middle of what was beginning to be a conspiracy to overthrow an American presidential election. You're right, Lindsey. God help us, Chuck. So tell me how this works. There is recommendation to indict Lindsey Graham for trying to tell Brad Raffensperger to throw out legal votes. But it didn't happen. Can you walk us through that process? Yeah. So generically, Joe, it's not that unusual. Lots of information go before grand juries all the time. They hear about lots of people and lots of acts in lots of different places. That obviously happened here in Georgia. At the end of the day, it's up to the prosecutor, in this case, Fannie Willis, to determine whether they have sufficient facts and evidence places. That obviously happened here in Georgia. At the end of the day, it's up to the prosecutor,

in this case, Fannie Willis, to determine whether they have sufficient facts and evidence to convict a trial. And if you don't, right, there's certainly a delta gap between the quantum of evidence you need to indict probable cause and the quantum of evidence you need to convict a trial, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a much higher level. And so she made a judgment that they didn't have what they needed, and she proceeded against some people and not others. But Joe, if I may, there's something else here that really bugs me. In the federal system, grand jury proceedings are secret. They only become public if you charge somebody. And that means the person charged then has an opportunity to defend himself or herself, right? Certain rights attached. You can cross-examine the evidence against you. You get counsel. You get a trial by jury. A judge presides over it.

You can testify in your own defense if you want. When you're simply named in a report, as Senator Graham was, you don't have an opportunity to defend yourself in a court of law. So I'm not a fan of his. I don't admire him by any stretch. But I think what happened to him and the others who are named but not charged is patently unfair because there's no place to go, really, to defend yourself. So, you know, without condoning anything he did, because I think it was wholly improper, I hate the notion that reports can be made public and can single people out for, you know, by a grand jury to suggest that they ought to be charged because they don't have the same rights as somebody who is charged. I don't know

that Georgia broke its own law. I'm not saying that. But if that is permitted in Georgia, Joe, I think it's a very bad idea. Well, the entire process in Georgia regarding this first group of grand juries, where you have grand jury person going out blabbing all over the place out of control, it does seem like it needs to be tightened up. That part of it needs to be tightened up a good bit. And Mika, you know, Chuck's concerns reminds me of what a lot of people were saying after James Comey said, I'm not going to indict Hillary Clinton in July of 19, 2016. And then he went out and held a press conference and indicted her politically. You either indict him or you don't indict him. If you don't indict him, keep your

mouth shut. You know, there's a lot of concern that the state, the Fulton County case is so sweeping, so grand it'll take forever. But Jonathan Lemire, one thing we see here with this list of names of people who were recommended for charges but were not charged is you can't you could argue that this is a sign that there was not prosecutorial overreach, that Bonnie Willis was as careful as she could be while she's trying to take this case forward. And also, whether it's in federal court or state court, as Chuck mentioned earlier, unlike all the other cases that could get stamped out if Donald Trump were to win the presidency,

you cannot run from Georgia. She has time. Yeah, I think this decision depends how you look at it. As you bring your own biases to it, you can read into it one way or the other. I do think to your point, Mika, that's right. We saw a couple of three U.S. senators here, other Michael Flynn, Boris Epstein, other top members of Trump's orbit who were named to the report not indicted. You can argue, OK, the D.A. was being very careful. Conversely to what Chuck said, youicted. You can argue, OK, the D.A. was being very careful. Conversely to what Chuck said, you know, it seems like, well, by putting these names out there at all, you're injecting politics into this. And it's going to give Trump and his allies more ammunition

to make the case. This is all politically motivated. Look how big this was. They were even going after sitting U.S. senators. And we know that the D.A. is following the facts. But again, it's going to be smoke. It's going to be about whataboutism. It's about the Republicans throwing attacks up against the wall and trying to make things stick. But this has always been the case that when you speak to people in Trump's orbit, which I do, they recognize it's the one they have the least control over, that they know that

this is a state case, that Donald Trump's whole reason for running in many ways is to try to stay out of jail. And if he were to win with the federal cases, he can largely make those go away. He can stop the investigation. He can try to self-pardon himself. He can't do anything about the New York one, but that's seen as a minor matter. This is a big deal, this case. And no matter how long it takes, it's always going to be looming over Donald Trump. Well, you know, you are right. You talk to, it's so fascinating how this is all breaking down. You talk to the Trump people.

They are most concerned about Georgia, obviously concerned about the documents, but they like the Fort Pierce jury. They think that they can get a Fort Pierce jury that's not going to follow the law. They talk about jury nullification. They did it with O.J. They'll do it with Trump. That's sort of the attitude in Fort Pierce. Not so in D.C., though.

They're also very concerned about an early D.C. trial coming next year. Jack Smith really tight, has a really tight claim against him. So we'll see how that all works out. I will say, Chuck Rosenberg, thank you so much. Thank you, Chuck. Greatly appreciate it. Rev, I will say, though, and I've thought about this, it's so ironic. And I had a friend who went to the Iowa-Iowa State game this past week,

and he's a Cyclone. And he just said to me, he goes, how ironic that the guy that went around saying lock her up and having his audience to say lock her up is actually a guy who may be locked up. And by the way, the student section, the student sections were chanting just that to Donald Trump on Saturday. What goes around comes around.

What goes around comes around. And Lock Her Up has turned into, as you said, some students saying lock him up. And when you look at the irony, I mean, you couldn't make this up in a novel of Donald Trump who campaigned on Lock Her Up, Rudy Giuliani who made his name locking people up. And they're the ones now facing the criminal justice system. And Lindsey Graham, who crossed state lines to find out about an election, having to explain why he wasn't sitting in the dock with the rest of the co-defendants. I mean, this whole thing is kind of flipped. And many of us are sitting back wondering how they get out of this. Yeah. Richard, let's go from Iowa and Iowa State to India and Vietnam. How did the meetings go for the president? The meeting, the G20 meeting in India was almost a predictable disappointment. The host country has a lot of

sway. Even though China and Russia were not represented by their leaders, the president really couldn't impose American preferences. The language on Ukraine was disappointing, was weaker than it was the last time around. The language on climate change was disappointing. It talked about a phase down of coal, whatever that means, in line with national circumstances, essentially giving countries carte blanche to do what they want. The most important thing, though, if you're allowed to say it, Woody Allen line, 80 percent of life is showing up. I think the U.S.-India conversation sends a message like the U.S.-Vietnam conversation. It's a way of basically telling China, we have partners, we are growing economic and strategic ties to these countries on your

periphery, China. You have created problems for yourself. I think that's the important part of the trip, Joe. But in terms of actual accomplishments, a clear disappointment. Well, let's talk about China, though, not being there, first of all. I mean, and how impactful that is. Secondly, though, let's talk about Joe Biden and Modi getting together in Washington, D.C., Joe Biden, Modi getting together in India and talk about the fact that you have India who has the opportunity to really see economic growth over the next decade. And if you're India, I mean, this is just forget that we're we're Americans here when we're saying this, even if we were, you know, you know, not not Americans and not cheering for things to go well with America. I mean, the fact is, if you're Modi, are you going to be looking to the United States with a twenty five trillion dollar economy that just keeps growing faster than than than most of the rest of the world? Are you going to be looking to China, who is sputtering right now, having having economic problems and is arresting or at least terrorizing their top entrepreneurs?

This seems seems like a pretty easy choice for Modi. I mean, the answer to your question is yes, he's going to do both. And that's what's so the pattern of behavior of the Indies, the Vietnams and others, they are simply going to refuse to choose. They are going to want to develop better relations with us economically and strategically. But and it's a big butt. They are not going to cut off China economically. They're not going to cut off China strategically. They're not going to antagonize it. So India. Well, Richard, we should we should expect him to do that, though. This isn't going to be like a U.S. or USA deal. But if we're the first among partners, the first among equals, that's pretty good, isn't it? It's good.

But in the case of Vietnam, economically, we won't be. I'm for probably 100 countries in the world. China is their biggest economic partner. India is going to stay close to Russia, is going to stay close to China economically, doesn't want to alienate them. They're going to want to have it both ways. India is going to hedge, Joe. And U.S. goals to grow the economic relationship with India will happen up to a point.

India is still quite protectionist. It's a very hard market to penetrate. But this relationship has grown under Democrats and Republicans, economically and strategically. It'll happen. It just won't be transformational. And then meanwhile, India has its own challenges domestically, as you know. I mean, Mr. Modi is leading India in a direction that's less liberal. It's become an illiberal democracy in some ways, a much larger state role.

So we'll see how it goes. But yeah, the economic news out of India is pretty good. It's the best news, if you will, there. It's not, though, going to substitute for China. If you're Tim Cook, you're not going to basically look at India and say, India is going to take the place of China for me. It's just not going to do that. We're talking about on the margins here. Katty K has a question. Katty. Richard, talk a little bit more about the G20 in terms of this kind of idea of rebalancing a little bit of the strength of the global south. I mean, it's clearly

something, you know, India is trying to lead. China also wanting to, you know, show that it can be a big player in the global south. I mean, how how seriously do you take this? And what are the implications for the transatlantic alliance for the United States and Europe? If we are starting to see these countries with the expansion, for example, of the BRICS organization, if we are starting to see these countries throw their weight around a little bit more? It's a good reminder that the world is moving away from anything that looks binary, that you have a decentralization, a distribution of capacity, economic, military, diplomatic, what have you. The G20 in many ways reflects that. Indeed, that's why it was invented nearly 20 years ago. The whole idea was to give countries that didn't have a voice a much bigger voice.

That said, the question is whether this desire is going to be backed up by resources. One of the things that came out of the G20 was to make the international financial institutions, the world back, the IMF more representative of the world you're talking about. Will it happen? I'm not so sure. Is it going to be backed by resources and the rest? So I think it represents something that's more aspirational than anything else. But I come away from these meetings in some way shrugging my shoulders, saying it's really not that significant. This is not a serious organization.

It's not an institution. It's a gathering. There's no permanent staff. It happens when it happens. It then comes and goes. Whoever runs it next time will have their own agenda. And meanwhile, we'll see if there's the resources to really make a difference. The biggest right now challenge to what China's doing with Belt and Road is not so much us. It's what China's doing with Belt and Road. And that's that's been our saving grace. So Brazil is the host next year, Richard. We should note President Biden just went wheels up leaving Hanoi. But before he did, he stopped at the John McCain Memorial there, paying tribute to his friend, who, of course, was a prisoner for quite some time. But I was struck

how the day before, when he wrapped up his stop in New Delhi, he was pressed repeatedly by reporters about whether he was trying to check China, trying to curb China's expansion there, which his administration had sort of telegraphed like that's what we're trying to do. But he made a point of saying no over and over. He said, no, we're not doing it. No, we're not doing that. I read that as that was a message to other countries in the region who are nervous about a conflict between China and the U.S. That's trying to meant to be reassurance with Southeast Asia. But what happens next in terms of that bilateral Beijing-Washington meeting, especially if China says they're not sure Xi Jinping is going to meet with them in November?

Yeah, the Ministry for State Security just the other day raised questions about whether Xi Jinping is going to come to San Francisco in November. A lot of speculation as to why. Is it because of China's domestic economic problems? He doesn't want to leave. Is it because he doesn't want to have a meeting with the American president against that backdrop? The United U.S. economy is doing pretty well. China's isn't. Was his reason for not coming to the G20 simply because he was unhappy with India and its strategic association with the U.S.? I don't know the answer to that. I don't think anybody does. So I think it'll be interesting whether he shows up and if so, whether these two leaders can, quote unquote, establish a floor in their relationship.

And that's the other thing President Biden's trying to do. He still doesn't want the U.S.-Chinese relationship to go into free fall. He'd like something of a floor, but it takes two to do that. I mean, the bottom line is it is the first time in a very long time that China has been the country between the United States and China. China has been the country that is facing the grim future right now. Economically, they're stumbling. And again, the United States, we're all going through difficult times. Katty K, I mean, the United States bring us some perspective. The United States economy is doing so much better than most economies in the world. Again, I keep talking because I keep talking about like a twenty five trillion dollar GDP to China, 17 trillion dollar GDP is because it wasn't so long ago, three, four years ago, we were both

around 17, 18 trillion. The United States has kept growing. China, like Japan in 1991, just stopped. Yeah, I mean, look at what the administration has done over the last two years. It really has produced results in terms of the U.S. economy. It looks like America is going to avoid going into recession as it tries to get out of the post-COVID era. Inflation down at 3 percent. I know prices are still higher than they were when Joe Biden came into office, and that's part of the problem that he's facing. But inflation is coming down. Unemployment is down.

Compare the United States to Europe at the moment. I mean, the American economy is booming, healthy. People are employed and prices are coming down. That's just not the case in Europe at the moment where inflation is double what it is here. And certainly, you know, you mentioned China and the problems that the Chinese economy is having, the stagnation that the Chinese economy is having. America is really the only place to look at in terms of the global economy at the moment. All right. Coming up, we'll take a live look at ground zero as the nation remembers the deadly September 11th attacks. We'll speak with the chief of the National Guard Bureau,

General Dan Hokanson, about how things have of the American flag on the side of the Pentagon that was attacked on September 11th. When the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were hit 22 years ago, the National Guard was deployed to protect New York City and Washington, both on the ground and from the air. After that, we saw the beginning of a shift in the Guard's mission from a strategic reserve to an operational force that would eventually be deployed to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Joining us now, four-star General Dan Hilkinson, the chief of the National Guard Bureau. Thank you very much for being on the show this morning on this special day. If you could talk a little bit about the meaning of this day, 22 years later, and how it perhaps triggered the transformation of the National Guard. Yeah, Mika, thank you for that question. And I think for all of us

that were alive then, it's one of those days you remember exactly where you were when you first heard the news and just the impact it had on our nation. But you also look at the heroism displayed that day by our first responders, by many of our civilians and also our guardsmen, particularly here in New York. You know, we've got a large National Guard contingent here in New York and literally hundreds and thousands of them immediately went to their armory without being asked. And by the end of the day, I think we had over 6,000 guardsmen on duty here. And as you mentioned, we had six states involved with the air patrolling. In fact, one of the unique stories is within Washington, D.C., when Flight 93 was unaccounted for, we launched fighters. And because they were not armed, they only had 500 rounds of

training ammo. And their mission was to prevent anything from attacking our nation's capital. And so when those air crews took off, they knew that may well mean them having to ram that aircraft to prevent it from attacking our nation's capital. General, the extraordinary moments of service and potential sacrifice 22 years ago. But now we are two decades since the attack, still ever present, of course, those particularly in New York. But how do you see that spirit, that spirit of service? Are you still seeing Americans want to serve in that way? And are you concerned that maybe not enough are? You know, there is an incredible sense of service with those serving today. And when you look at

the past 20 years, you know, that was really the turning point for the National Guard. Prior to that, we were more of a strategic reserve. And then we became operational over the last 20 years. In fact, over a million guardsmen have deployed overseas. And when you look at today's spirit of service, the experience that they developed over that time, we've got incredible leaders at every level. And we're very fortunate the National Guard will meet our end strength requirement by the end of the year on the Army National Guard. On the Air Guard, it's a little bit closer. But what we're finding is, you know, just those eligible to even enter military service, that number continues to decrease every year. But at the end of the day, we, you know, we maintain our standards and we're

looking for the best and brightest, and they still come to our formations, and it's really good to have them there. General, over the last 20 years, the principal areas overseas deployment were the greater Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so forth. Looking forward, it's not going to be. The contingencies we're thinking about much more Europe or Asia, China, if you will, the great geopolitical game. How does that affect the Guard? How is your training and planning adapting to, if you will, the great geopolitical game. How does that affect the Guard? How is your training and planning adapting to, if you will, the return of traditional geopolitics? So, interesting, you may not be aware, so the National Guard

has state partners. So, every state in the United States has a national partner. And we really developed this after the end of the Cold War, when the Berlin Wall came down. Great example is California has been a partner with Ukraine since 1993. And really, after Russia invaded Ukraine for the first time in 2014, our guardsmen sat down with the Ukrainians and looked at what went right, what went wrong. And we stood up a joint multinational training group in Ukraine in 2016. And we really focused on those areas. And you're really seeing the impact there and their ability to thwart Russia's plans to invade the entire country. Now, there's a lot of work still going on. Shortly after the war began, we moved our training to Germany.

We still continue to train as guardsmen, the Ukrainian army with equipment. And of course, that's making an impact on the battlefield even today. General, one of the things that I most remember 22 years ago is a sense of people from different races and backgrounds came together and realized that we were all under threat. I mean, no one sent an email in telling blacks or Latinos or Asians don't go to work tomorrow to trade or to Twin Towers or at the Pentagon. And after that, there was this coming together of saying we have our political differences, but we need to stand up and preserve the country. Have you seen that growth maintained? Did you see it then this kind of spirit of American unity and what has happened to it in your judgment the last 22 years. Yes, right. I see that every single day.

Anytime I drove with the Guard unit or visit them, we have about 23,000 deployed today. You know, to them, they realize the importance of what they're doing. And it's regardless of your color, your skin or what you believe it. At the end of the day, it says U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Coast Guard or Space Force. And we just work together because we know we have a job to do and we take it very seriously. And we're very honored and proud to represent our country no matter where it is on the face of the earth. Chief of the National Guard Bureau General Dan Hokanson, thank you very much for joining us this morning.