Morning Joe - Morning Joe 9/1/23

Episode Date: September 1, 2023

Trump enters not guilty plea in Fulton County case

Let me just say this. You know, these are the distractions that get you to lose elections. The last time we were talking about special sessions here in the state of Georgia, just a few weeks later, the Republican majority lost two U.S. Senate races. And I can tell you that as long as I'm governor, we are going to stay focused on the issues that help all Georgians. That is the way you win races. That is the way you win races. That is the way you move forward, not focusing on the past or some grifter scam that somebody's

doing to help them raise a few dollars into their campaign account. Georgia's Republican Governor Brian Kemp with some strong words, obviously talking there about Donald Trump and calling out far right members of his party who want a special session to remove the district attorney prosecuting Donald Trump. He says it's not going to happen on his watch. This comes as the former president officially now pleads not guilty in the Fulton County election interference case. We'll have much more on all of that in just a moment. Plus, a Republican presidential candidate again calling for term limits in the Senate following Mitch McConnell's latest health scare. We'll have more on his medical situation

also ahead. We'll look at the Biden administration's plan to close a major loophole for gun sales. Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It is Friday, September 1st. I'm Willie Geist. With us this morning, the host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, former White House Director of Communications to President Obama, Jennifer Palmieri, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson, White House editor for Politico, Sam Stein, and former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Glenn Kirchner. He's an NBC News legal analyst. Got a full house. Good morning to you all Columbia, Glenn Kirchner. He's an NBC News legal analyst. Got a full house. Good morning to you all. Let's dive right in. Former President Trump officially has pled not guilty in the Fulton County election interference case.

Trump's team entered his plea yesterday for the 13 felony charges he faces, including racketeering and conspiracy. The plea was entered in writing as they filed a waiver to tell the court he would not appear for next week's scheduled arraignment. Former president's legal team also pushing to separate his case from the other co-defendants. The filing argues October 23rd is not enough time to prepare a defense. That date was set for the speedy trial of co-defendant Kenneth Cheesebro. DA Fonny Willis asked a judge last week to set that date for the remainder of the co-defendant Kenneth Cheesebro. DA Fonny Willis asked a judge last week to set that date for the remainder of the co-defendants as well. When the trial date officially is set, there will be cameras in the courtroom. That decision confirmed by the judge yesterday. Hearings

and proceedings related to the case will be televised and live streamed on the court's YouTube channel. So, Glenn, I'll start with you this morning. Let's talk about, first of all, Donald Trump waiving the arraignment, pleading not guilty. I guess no surprise there. But what about severing his case from the others? What do you read into that? You know, it's not a surprise, Willie. In virtually every co-defendant case, we get motions to sever, which are essentially defendants saying, look, judge, I want you to break me out from the pack. I want a separate trial. They want to separate themselves from the people that they believe might be more culpable. They don't want evidence spilling over on them in a joint trial. And with respect to Donald Trump's decision to forego a personal appearance at his arraignment,

I have a feeling, you know, all along Donald Trump has been, you know, waging this battle really in a court of public opinion, not in a court of law. So he may have made the decision that, you know, his grifting opportunities will not be particularly high if he makes another personal appearance in Georgia for his arraignment. So he and his lawyers have decided to waive the personal appearance at the arraignment and are a plea of not guilty. And he'll wait to see what the court does, not only with respect to the next in-person status hearing, but with respect to his motion to sever, it'll be interesting. I will say, Willie, most motions to sever are denied. And the court will cite things like judicial economy and

efficiency. Imagine if you had to have 19 separate trials. Witnesses would have to testify 19 times. It could go on for years. And there is this sort of preference for a joint trial when defendants are properly joined together in a single indictment. But we'll have to see what Judge McAfee does down in Georgia. So with that in mind, then, Glenn, do you believe that even Kenneth Cheesebro gets his own trial very soon, by the way? We're into September this morning, so that's next month. He's looking for an October 23rd trial, which DA Fonny Willis has said, sure, we're ready. Let's go ahead and do that. Do you think he goes on October 23rd? And as you look at the idea of

this getting split up 19 different ways, which, as you say, is unlikely to happen, when might Donald Trump finally have his trial? Yeah, great question. Two different issues with respect to somebody demanding a speedy trial. And under Georgia law, that means Cheeseboro has to be tried by the end of October. That is sort of separate and apart from a motion to sever. I do think Cheeseboro will get his speedy trial. Sidney Powell, who has also made a speedy trial, the man may get batched together with Cheeseborough. It's an open question as to how much

time Judge McAfee will give all of the other defendants. But here's the thing. I think Cheeseborough and Powell have set a bit of an atmospheric precedent, not a legal precedent. And their arguments are now kind of antagonistic to all of the other defendants who will argue, geez, I can't possibly be ready to go to trial in October. The judge, I think, can rightly observe, well, other defendants are ready, willing and able to go in October. So why can't you? So one of those 19 co-defendants, one of Donald Trump's 18 co-defendants in this Georgia case, may have, well, confessed a little bit to the crimes he's accused of while giving an interview to Fox News. Former Trump lawyer John Eastman,

he of the infamous Eastman memo, appeared to admit to attempting to stop the certification of the 2020 elections during exchange with Fox host Laura Ingram. On January 6th, what did you want to happen? And how was that historically grounded in the history of our country, how would that have taken place? So just so the viewers can understand what would have unfolded and how that would have ultimately been constitutional. So, you know, several things. Some people had urged that Vice President Pence simply had power to reject electors whose certification was still pending in legal contests. I don't believe that. Go ahead. I don't believe that.

I don't either. That's one thing I don't agree with. And I explicitly told Vice President Pence in the Oval Office on January 4th that even though it was an open issue under the circumstances we had, I thought it was the weaker argument, and it would be foolish to exercise such power even if he had it. What I recommended, and I've said this repeatedly, is that he accede to requests from more than 100 state legislators in the swing states to give them a week to try and sort out the impact of what everybody acknowledged was illegality in the conduct of the election. I don't think everyone acknowledged it. Not everyone acknowledged it, but that was the argument that was being made, obviously. And there were obviously irregularities that everybody had seen.

But whether that was, yeah, whether it rose to the level of changing the outcome of the election, again, without a legal proceeding in the states that mattered, the argument ultimately was a difficult one to make. I mean, hence, hence here we are. So, Gene Robinson, there you have one of the central players in all this, a guy that Jonathan Lemire wrote about a lot in his book, The Big Lie, who drafted the memo with this theory, with this crack legal theory that, yes, Mike Pence could flip the election to Donald Trump, effectively saying, yes, that's exactly what I tried to do around the election. And by the way, to say that everyone knew that I tried to do around the election. And by the way, to say that everyone knew that there was something fishy about this election. No, no, no, no. There were 65 court cases. Only two of them went his way. And also people saying, obviously, there was something

going on. I mean, they're throwing around these words. It's just not true. It's just not true. And he may have implicated himself in that interview. No, you're absolutely right. It's just not true. It's certainly not true that everybody acknowledged there were problems with the election. In fact, as you as you just mentioned, that proposition was tested in court 65 times and it failed. Well, you know, two minor examples of where maybe irregularities were found. But in fact, nothing that would have changed the outcome of the election in any state, period. It just, it simply did not happen. So that's a lie. And he just acknowledged, really, that he tried to do something that was unconstitutional or extra constitutional. There's no sort of, really, that he tried to do something that was unconstitutional or extra-constitutional. There's no sort of, well, give it a week sort of provision in the Constitution or in our law

that would allow that sort of thing. And so, yeah, it sounds to me like an admission of the facts with which he's being charged criminally. And it's a problem. I don't know why these lawyers go on Fox News and talk. They're criminally charged, and defendants who go out in public and talk about their cases generally don't do themselves any good and often do themselves harm. And I think that's what Eastman is doing. A little light confession there from John Eastman, who, of course, also during the process in 2020 in emails would suggest we might be breaking the law here. So more of the same from him.

And to Gene's point, it's certainly right that lawyers usually tell their clients not to go on TV. Someone needs to tell the lawyers to do the same. But, Jen Palmieri, there's something else about that moment that was really interesting to me. I noted it on way too early, but it's worth further exploration here. That's Laura Ingraham, who was very careful in how she talked about that with the backdrop of the Dominion lawsuit settlement looming. Fox News Corp allowed a lot of money there. There's another Smartmatic lawsuit still pending. So isn't it an interesting political moment, though, where Fox, at least in certain moments, is not willing to fully support Trump and his team and their claims and election

interference? Could that hurt Trump's political standing as we barrel into these primaries? I had that. I mean, that was my big takeaway was like, was, wow, she is going out of her way to interject, to correct the record, say what we know, what we don't know, what was possible, what wasn't possible. And in like sort of a casualty of the Trump years is the casualness with which the lawyer in this case goes on air, says, you know, basically admits to a conspiracy here

to say we're trying to find some way to get this done. But, you know, Laura Ingraham has been held. She knows what it's like to be held accountable under the law. Right. And John Eastman doesn't know that yet. But it is it has been I mean, I've been seeing Fox just in the last couple of weeks just be very, you know, it's a little schizophrenic and how whether or not it can really be propping up Trump without without undermining its own, you know, it's like whether or not it can survive yet another court challenge. Meanwhile, Bill Barr, of course, the former attorney general under Donald Trump, again, pouring cold water on all these arguments you're hearing, especially the one from Trump himself.

Trump repeatedly has said his upcoming criminal trials amount to, quote, election interference. Well, yesterday, also on Fox News, Barr called those claims silly. I mean, the basic principle in the criminal justice system is if a prominent person commits a crime and there's a seeking office, that doesn't give him immunity. If there's enough time to have it resolved before the election, it should be resolved. The idea that, oh, OK, well, I'm sorry, we'll let you get run in the election and then after we'll address it, that's not a principle of the criminal. I mean, just think, some mayor charged with massive embezzlement.

And he says, well, you know, it's a year and a half to the election. Let's put that on hold. Will I run for re-election? It's silly. It's silly. Now, you can argue about whether he should have been charged and so forth. But the idea that this is interfering with the election is simply wrong. And Sam Stein, this is an argument we've heard from judges in these cases, too, which is particularly I'm thinking of Judge Chuck in the D.C. federal case around the election saying, yes, March 4th is the date we begin your trial. I guess that's on the eve of Super Tuesday. It's not my job to schedule through your presidential campaign. If you didn't want to have all these legal problems during a campaign year, you probably should not have committed a large number of alleged crimes.

Yeah, that is the cause here. You know, what makes I think Barr effective here is he could care less what people think about him. And it comes across in the way he talks. Right. It's like, so what if people on Fox News get mad at me for telling the truth? I don't care. I'm not running for office or anything. And, yeah, I think he's got a very valid point, not just legally. But, you know, you can look at it the other way, right? It's a service to the voters, actually, to get the legal stuff out of the way, right? If you're a voter, if you're going to cast a vote in primary, in an ideal circumstance, you would know if the person you're casting a vote for

is going to be arrested, if he'll be able to even be on the ballot. These are major questions that need to be resolved before people cast ballots. And the idea that Trump can just push it off until after the election is pretty transparently an attempt by his team to try to run out the clock, get past the election, win office, and try to just get rid of all the legal problems that have been surrounding him over the past couple months. If I could, I want to go back to one point about Eastman, which I think is a valid point here. Why is he going on Fox News? Why is he creating more problems for himself? I think this is sort of the underlying issue here that's happened, which is previously obscure

lawyers like John Eastman. Yes, they found an immense amount of legal problems from their actions leading up to the 2020 elections and certification. They've also found a fair bit of celebrity. John Eastman is now a celebrity on the right. He goes to confabs and conferences. He's hailed as a hero in certain quarters of the conservative movement. And so there is an impulse that he is trying to resist not very well to go out and be celebrated, go out and do TV hits on Fox News. I think that impulse is problematic, ultimately, for these types of figures, because they're going to lead them to say things like he did on Laura Ingraham's show. It's a good point. And you could say the same about Rudy Giuliani

and Sidney Powell during the 2020 election. Why were they doing it? Relevance. They were on TV. People were talking about them, something they crave. Another development around January 6th yesterday, two former leaders of the Proud Boys were handed some of the longest sentences in the January 6th Capitol attack. Joe Biggs, a top lieutenant in that group, was sentenced to 17 years in prison following his conviction on several charges, including seditious conspiracy. That's one year shy of the 18-year term given to Oath Keepers leader Stuart Rhodes. The sentencing, a departure from the 33-year term prosecutors originally wanted after arguing Biggs was a vocal leader of the group's shift to political violence.

Another key figure in this attack, Zachary Real, was given 15 years, far below the 30 years sought by prosecutors. During sentencing, federal judge Timothy Kelly described what occurred that day as a national disgrace, saying, quote, What happened on January 6th harmed an important American custom. That day broke our tradition of peacefully transferring power, which is among the most precious things we had as Americans. Notice I say had. We don't have it anymore. End quote. Defense attorney for both Real and Biggs argued the sentences were harsh, reiterating his clients were just listening to orders from Donald Trump. You know, Donald Trump stood, what, how far is the ellipse from here? A mile and a half, two miles from here?

He had 74 million votes. He was the commander in chief, the leader of the free world. He told people the election had been stolen. He said that while he was cloaking the authority of the United States. There's a bigger threat than a riot at the Capitol. That's a stolen election. These people listened. A couple of years would have been enough time. These sentences are obscene. This morning, two more Proud Boys will be sentenced and the leader, Enrique Tarrio,

expected to learn his punishment next Tuesday. So, Glenn Kirchner, let's take that point from the defense attorney there about the length of these sentences, not even half in some cases of what prosecutors were looking for. But still, a decade and a half is a long time in jail. And their argument is, well, Donald Trump made me do it. We were just following orders. In fact, over the course of some of these trials, Proud Boy leaders were weeping literally in court saying, I screwed up that day. I know I did something wrong, but it was the big guy's fault. You know, Willie, I struggle with these sentences. You know,

rarely did I have judges impose only half of the sentence that I was asking for as the prosecutor in the case. But, you know, I do think, you know, we have to accept the fact that they were responding to orders from the president of the United States, the commander in chief. You know, he was telling these folks, your vote was stolen. Your election was rigged. Your president is being unlawfully taken from you. And if you don't go to the Capitol and fight like hell, you won't have a country anymore. Now go down there and stop the certification. Of course, he used the word steal, which is helpful because it provides evidence of Donald Trump's criminal intent,

because even he knew it wasn't stolen. But, you know, I reflect on my own experience. You know, I joined the army in the 1980s and served on active duty for six and a half years because I was willing to listen to the commander in chief at the time. I was willing to go somewhere and fight like hell if I was being told, if you don't do that, you won't have a country anymore. You know, I would have gone wherever I was deployed. Some of these defendants believed Donald Trump. And frankly, you're entitled to believe the president of the United States, even though people who can discern fact from fiction knew Donald Trump was lying. So I have mixed feelings about sentences that are only half of what the prosecutors are asking for. But I think in part, it's a recognition that Donald Trump is

the one who was really responsible for the crimes and the sentences are reflecting that. Yeah. And, Gene, this is something we've seen again and again in these cases, these trials that they played out with people who were at the Capitol, people in this case who led the attack on the Capitol, which is and it's a legal offense. Right. They're trying to keep out of jail. They need something. But in some cases, and both of these guys who were sentenced yesterday, crying in court, Mr. Real saying, I'm done peddling lies for other people who don't care about me, apologizing to his friends, his families, even apologizing to prosecutors saying, look, I believe lies about the election. I know now that they were lies. It didn't really spare them. They're going to jail for 15 and 17 years, respectively. But this is this is the case they're making. Donald Trump and others, members of the media told us a lie. We bought it and attacked

the Capitol in what we thought was a patriotic act. Yeah, Willie, I think that we've had, what, hundreds of these January 6th cases now come through the courts, and we've seen defendants convicted and sentenced. And I think at this point, we can look and say, overall, the justice system is getting this right. The foot soldiers, the people who simply were true believers who came to town because they believed everything Donald Trump told them about the stolen election and and and just sort of followed the crowd and and went into the into the Capitol. They're they're being punished, but they're being punished with with much shorter sentences for more serious for less serious offenses than the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. The Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers came organized. They came with gear. They came with tactical plans to upset our constitutional order and to essentially stage what would have amounted to a coup d'etat by stopping the certification of a free and fair election.

And that's a much more serious offense, especially the defendants who were convicted of seditious conspiracy. And it deserves these longer sentences. I agree with Glenn that maybe there's some mitigation because they were being told to do so by the president of the United States. There will be a reckoning in Judge Tanya Judkin's court for that former president. But in the meantime, these sentences seem about right to me. They are serious sentences. And, you know, in federal prison, you're going to do the time. And that's a long time, 15 years, 17 years. This is a long time to think about what you did. And I think they're appropriate. Glenn, what about that point that Gene makes, which is the way the justice system is working?

And it's been slow and patient, but here it is. It's a lot of people to get through in the case of January 6th. But even now, Georgia, you have the 19 co-defendants. You can even look at Rudy Giuliani's defamation case. He's going to have to pay a whole bunch of money to two election workers in Georgia who he defamed and made lies about and, frankly, ruined their lives. It does appear, and maybe not fast enough for some people, it does appear now, though, the bill is coming due for so many of these people in the justice system is doing its job. Yeah, no, I agree with Gene, you know, as conflicted as I am about some of these sentences, I do think the justice system or systems, both federal and state kind of writ large, are getting this right. I think that the injustice that I feel that is at play

every minute of every day is that the people who were following Donald Trump's orders are, you know, pretty promptly being arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned. And the general who gave the unlawful order is running for president, going to dinner parties, holding fundraisers and putting in danger with his statements and his posts, everybody else who's trying to hold him accountable, judges, prosecutors, witnesses, jurors and their family members in some instances. So until we remedy that by, you know, getting Donald Trump held accountable for his crimes, it still feels like we are sort of living with an injustice at the moment. I do think and I believed all along that the system will get there and hold Trump and the

rest of the hierarchy of the insurrection, the suits of the insurrection, not just the boots accountable for what they've done. By the way, not only is Donald Trump seeing his supporters go to jail for what he stoked, he's also having them pay his legal bills by raising money around all of this. NBC News legal analyst Glenn Kirshner, thanks so much. So great to have your expertise in all of this. We appreciate it. Still ahead on Morning Joe, the latest on Mitch McConnell's condition after another

health scare this week and what Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley is saying about it now. Plus, longtime Republican strategist Karl Rove tears into Vivek Ramaswamy's 2024 candidacy, arguing Republicans deserve a choice, not an echo. We'll read from Rove's new piece and brand new reporting this morning about the White House building a war room in anticipation of a Republican led impeachment inquiry. You're watching Morning Joe on a Friday morning. We'll be right back. on the train. It's a good looking shot of the White House, the Washington Monument. You see the Lincoln Memorial. Beautiful Friday morning in Washington. A doctor says Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is fit to work after having an apparent medical episode this week. In a statement yesterday, the Capitol's attending physician wrote he consulted with the Kentucky Republican and determined McConnell was, quote, medically clear

to continue with his schedule as planned. The doctor added, occasional lightheadedness is not uncommon in concussion recovery. It can also be expected as a result of dehydration. During a news conference on Wednesday, the 81-year-old McConnell froze up for nearly 30 seconds. The incident came a month after a similar one on Capitol Hill and several months after McConnell suffered a concussion and a broken rib after falling outside of a Washington hotel. Despite yesterday's clearance from the doctor, some Republicans still expressing skepticism about the senator's fitness to hold office. One anonymous House lawmaker tells NBC News McConnell needs to be more transparent because he's briefed on national security issues that most other members of Congress are not. But someone who is expressing public confidence in the minority leader,

President Biden. Speaking yesterday, the president, who also has faced questions, of course, surrounding his age, said he has no concerns about his former Senate colleague. I spoke to Mitch. He's a friend. And I spoke to him today, and you know, he was his old self on the telephone. It's not at all unusual to have the response that sometimes happens to Mitch when you've had a severe concussion. It's part of the recovery, and so I'm confident he's going to be back to his old self. Do you have any concerns about his ability to do his job? Do you have any concerns about his ability? I don't.

Says no, I don't have any concerns about McConnell's ability to do his job. Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley, who has called for mental competency tests for lawmakers over the age of 75, was asked about McConnell's latest health scare. Here's some of what she said to Fox News yesterday. It's sad. No one should feel good about seeing that, you know, with any more than we should feel good about seeing Dianne Feinstein, any more than we should feel good about a lot of what's happening or seeing Joe Biden's decline. What I will say is right now, the Senate is the most privileged nursing home in the country.

I mean, you know, Mitch McConnell has done some great things and he deserves credit, but you have to know when to leave. That is why I'm strongly in support of term limits in this country. I think that we do need mental competency tests for anyone over the age of 75. I wouldn't care if they did them over the age of 50. But these are people making decisions on our national security. They're making decisions on our economy, on the border. We need to know they're at the top of their game. You can't say that right now looking at Congress. So, Jen Palmieri, slightly less gracious there for Nikki Haley than was President Biden to Mitch McConnell calling the Senate a nursing home. But she has made she's making an

argument for term limits that are getting a little bit more traction anyway. Is it your sense that that may go anywhere? And then number two, how much do you think knowing Washington as well as you do, there are private conversations among Senate Republicans about what comes next after Mitch McConnell, about whether perhaps he should at least maybe not give up his seat, but step aside from his leadership role. Yeah. You know, we have term limits. They're called elections. And voters get to decide who, you know, who they who they support. And they know how old people are when they vote for them. You know, California voters understood how old Dianne Feinstein was when they reelected her. And, you know, they they chose to reelect her. And, you know, this idea of a competency test, imagine like it's hard to talk about.

Think about how fraught that would be. Recall Trump's doctor from 2016 who gave him, you know, how would you do something like that? It's her attempt to make just to make age a larger or larger point. But in terms of what's going on with the Senate. I, you know, there's a lot of concern about McConnell has been a very effective. He said we're, you know, deliberately effective leader. And if he goes, what can happen? There are there are sort of three senators in the wings waiting that could take his place. But having this happen a second time, I think that there is, you know, there is chatter in the Senate like that there that there may be time to make a change, whether or not you can execute on that before the end of the year.

But it is difficult to imagine how that plays out. There's a lot of tough issues that Congress is going to have to deal with, including a possible shutdown of the government. And, you know, there's there's concern that whether or not McConnell can operate as effectively as he normally does. And certainly to Jen's point, having it happen a second time changes the seriousness of this. It can't just be explained away as a one off dehydration. And McConnell did receive that note from the Senate attending physician yesterday. But certainly Sam Stein, people we've been talking to in Washington, you know, they're not sure they all buy it. The Democrats and Republicans alike are really concerned as to whether McConnell can keep his post, maybe his seat. But leadership is a different area.

So talk to us a little bit about how things could change if he were to step aside. We've reported how the White House views McConnell, you know, once a real Democratic villain, but now as an important partner, someone the president can work with, a bulwark to Trumpism, someone they need on Ukraine. But also how it would change the dynamics of the Senate and potentially embolden some on the far right. Well, let me get Jen's test out of the way. Person, woman, man, camera, TV. There it is. This allows me now to address Jonathan's point. John, you bring up a very valid and interesting point here, which is that McConnell, obviously, 10 years ago, was a super villain for Democrats. the blockading of Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination, clearly sort of the pinnacle of obstructionism for Democrats is vowed to not let Obama have a second term in his first term. Again, another emblem of how he was a thorn in their side. But since then, in this Trump era,

especially for this White House, he's become, I wouldn't call him an ally, but an occasional ally. He was there on the infrastructure deal. He's given cover to Biden on a few other legislative propositions, including that modest gun reform legislation. But more than that, he's kind of been a bit of a bulwark against Trumpism and, of course, therefore, Ukraine funding. And I think it's important for people to understand there is a very actually tight personal relationship between McConnell and Biden. I mean, Biden spoke at the McConnell Center in Kentucky shortly after that first debt ceiling fight in 2011 to praise the then minority leader for being a partner. And that was during the bad days. But now they've been a fairly formidable partnership. And inside the White House, there's real concern on a personal level,

of course, but also on a political level about what happens if McConnell were to step aside or leave the Senate entirely. And, you know, yes, there's some others in the Senate, in the Republican Party in the Republican Party, in the Senate that they can work with. But there is a sense that he, you know, is so important in so many key legislative vehicles that they need, including government funding, which is what he was talking about prior to this latest freezing episode. So there's real, real concern inside the administration. Sam Stein, on top of his excellent reporting and analysis, just crushing the Montreal cognitive assessment this morning.

Well done, my friend. Very impressive. Coming up next year, Russia holding sham elections in illegally occupied areas of Ukraine, even amid the ongoing conflict there. We'll have details on how Ukrainian officials are responding. Morning Joe's coming right back. It's a beautiful live picture from the top of our building at 30 Rockefeller Center. Look at that. Joe says Mika lives in an apartment at the top of the Comcast building here. I've never been invited up, frankly. It is the Friday before Labor Day, getting ready for a beautiful weekend. Meanwhile, overseas, Russia has begun staging what experts call sham elections

on territory it illegally annexed from Ukraine a year ago. Footage out of the Donetsk region shows citizens holding Russian passports and turning in ballots on a box marked with the Russian coat of arms. Reuters reports the Kremlin picked governors of each territory are seeking full terms. Join us now, former CIA officer Mark Polymeropoulos. He's an MSNBC national security and intelligence analyst. Mark, good morning. It's great to see you. You co-wrote a new piece on why Biden must send Ukraine the attackums it needs now. So let's start with what attackums are exactly and why you think they're so central to Ukraine winning this war. Sure. And good morning. Look, I think that we wrote the piece because many of us strongly

believe in the notion that the United States actually can affect the battlefield. And what does that mean? That means the provision of these long range ballistic missile systems that would enable Ukraine to hit anywhere in Crimea. And that would be behind the Russian defensive lines, whether it's supply depots or command and control or logistics. And, you know, we see a lot of criticism from the United States, unfortunately, and a lot of anonymous DOD officials talking about the slow pace of the Ukrainian counteroffensive. But the matter of fact is we haven't resourced them properly. So, again, it's the notion we can affect the battlefield. These attack missiles would allow us to.

And I still I find it and many of us find it a bit maddening that this this has not happened yet from the administration. So, Mark, let's talk about F-16s, which is something that Kiev has wanted from the beginning. Zelensky has made it a borderline obsession of his government saying, we need these, we need these now, but it's been slow going. So yeah, some training programs have picked up.

Give us your assessment as to what difference they actually would make were they to arrive, but how likely is it that they're gonna get there in time to make any real difference in this current sort of fighting season or two? Right, Jonathan. Look, we're behind the curve on timelines. You know, in the beginning, we had some senior officials talk about, you know, an 18 month training timeline, training evolution. And that wasn't true. It turned out to be four months. But as we've said on this program many times, and Admiral Stavridis has been very open about this, is that this is a bit late. Now, this has a lot to do with kind of the future of the Ukrainian military, but I don't think it's going to affect the kind of the current fighting season. But let me go back to the attack on issue that would. And, you know, there's a lot of talk in the administration. Well, maybe there's an inventory issue on attack them, or perhaps there's fears of Russian escalation. But on inventory, let's do a proof of concept.

That's what we argue in the piece. Give them 100 attack them, see what happens. And on Russian escalation fears, look, the Ukrainians are hitting targets inside Russia every night now with drones. So I think they've blown past this idea of escalation. So this is, you know, the article is a policy prescription on something that can affect the battlefield and do so now. I think it's really important that the administration do this. Mark, you mentioned the grumbling in Washington about the Ukrainian counteroffensive going slowly and not really taking that much territory. What is your assessment of how this battle is going? Well, two things on this. First, I think it's rather untoward for anonymous officials, you know, talking in the in

the U.S. media, complaining again about a slow counteroffensive when we haven't resourced them in order for them to succeed. So that's one piece. I would I would like to see that stop. But on the second part, look over the last, what, 72 hours or so, Ukrainians seem to have broken through in the Zaporizhzhia region, the Russian defensive lines. So perhaps they are making some more progress. And again, it's just the idea to slowly but surely wear down Russian defenses. The final point on this, and again, I have been very open about, you know, the historic nature of what the United States and the Biden administration has done for Ukraine. But there is this notion, again, that we can do a bit more.

And the idea of a frozen conflict, to me, just doesn't have to be the case. Again, we can affect the battlefield. That was the mantra that I kind of lived by at CIA. We can affect outcomes. So this is this article is giving the Biden administration a prescription to move forward. And quickly, the attack could be provided and could be used, unlike the F-16s, they could be used right away. Mark, there have been some grumblings, particularly from this Republican presidential field. We heard some of it at the debate that it's time to kind of walk away from Ukraine. One candidate said, I would cut off support for Ukraine altogether and then

make bizarre a couple of days ago claims about letting Russia do its thing as a counterweight to China or something. Are you confident, though, as you watch this, that American support for Ukraine is steady, that it's holding and that it will be in, that the United States will be in for the long haul? Well, you know, Willie, it's a great question. And then, you know, there are times where I am confident because I think there are very responsible members in the Republican Party and the national security sphere who do want aid to continue. But there's also this kind of, you know, MAGA slash populist wing. And you hear it from the former president. You hear it from some of the other candidates that talks about cutting off aid. And, you know, who listens to this is the Ukrainians. And so and the Europeans as well. I think it's incumbent on in the

presidential debates, for example, and you saw Nikki Haley do this to counter that argument, because, again, I do have some faith that there are responsible members on the Republican side. But but, you know, it's it's that's not kind of locked in stone and and uh and look this is not as we've said many times in the show this is not republican party of ronald reagan um in any sense and so you know reason to reason to be concerned but um still some time to go the new piece online at the news outlet the messenger titled why biden must send ukraine the attack comes it needs now msnbc national security and Analyst Mark Polymeropoulos. Mark, great to see you. Thanks so much.

Still ahead, a look at some of the stories making front pages across the country, including one state where top election officials are considering removing Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. How would that work? Plus, while the former president takes issue with his federal election interference trial starting on the day before one of the biggest dates on the Republican primary calendar, one of our next guests argues, quote, Trump's trials don't interrupt his campaign. They are his campaign. We'll explain. Morning Joe comes right back. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas was on Newsmax this week,

expressing his genuine and sincere outrage at an alcohol guideline that does not even exist in the United States. Last week, the director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism suggested U.S. recommendations could change to just two beers a week. That is the recommendation in Canada was suggesting maybe that would be a good idea for the United States as well. Well, here's what Senator Cruz had to say about that. What is it with liberals that want to control every damn aspect of your life? Biden came in. One of the first things they wanted to do was ban gas stoves.

New York State has now done that for new construction. They're trying to go after and regulate ceiling fans. I got to tell you, it's hot in Texas. We don't want to get rid of our ceiling fans. And now these idiots have come out and said, drink two beers a week. That's their guideline. Well, I got to tell you, if they want us to drink two beers a week, frankly, they can kiss my ass. Oh, my God, Sam. Joe and I have said many times it's just the acting is so bad.

That's where the director calls cut and steps in and says, OK, that was a great first take. What we're trying to do is simulate human behavior. So let's try that again. The way people actually actually behave. But Ted Cruz never misses a chance for a little bad acting in a little theater. Oh, I totally disagree. That was any worthy stuff. I would. It seemed really natural to me. This is what I do when I go out and drink with my buds. I have them lined up behind me. I grab the beer, and then when I drink, they subsequently drink in synchronization, and that's usually how it's done.

I don't know what kind of bars you go to in New York, Willie. Oh, my God. Gene, Ted Cruz, as we know already, just finds the issue of the moment, the outrage on Twitter, the outrage on wherever he's getting his information and just pushes on that button. Yeah. Yeah. Whether it's whether there actually is a button or not, he pushes. I mean, this is not a thing that he's complaining about yet. He's going to complain about it and and do his, you know, his his bad audition for I don't know, for the Ted Cruz show, I guess, which I'm not picking up from putting on my schedule.

John, is that how you roll when you hit the clubs in Brooklyn? Just crack open a beer with your buds? It couldn't be less like that. Yeah, I mean, Sam, there's a lot about that night you don't remember. I mean, this is the latest in sincerity from Ted Cruz, of course. He's not, this is not the first time he's done little stunts on camera. We recall him hiding in the bushes by the border. We remember this, where there he is here, lit just so, Blair Witch Project style here,

Jen Palmieri, as he tries to stir up the outrage. And that time it was about the migrants. This time it's about the right to have more than two Lone Star beers. Oh, my God. Fake outrage executed badly. There it is. Fake outrage executed badly. Willie, that is Ted Cruz.

Oh, my God. But a lot of fun to watch. Let's play that again later this morning. My gosh. All right. Sam Stein, my God. But a lot of fun to watch. Let's play that again later this morning. My gosh. All right. Sam Stein, Eugene Robinson. I hope you simulate cracking a few beers this Labor Day weekend as well. Absolutely. Sure. We'll see you later.