Morning Joe - Morning Joe 9/16/22

Episode Date: September 16, 2022

Friction between White House and senior Homeland Security officials mounts as migrant border crossings soar

Our own intelligence agencies in the United States of America have determined that domestic terrorism rooted in white supremacy is the greatest terrorist threat to our homeland today. I've been around a while. I never thought I'd hear that or say that enough. Enough. President Biden speaking at a White House summit aimed at combating violence fueled by hate. Meanwhile, the January 6th committee releases chilling new audio of the communications between members of a far right extremist group during the Capitol attack, including how they responded to a tweet from Donald Trump in real time. Plus, the latest in the Trump records case. A judge appoints a special master while keeping in place an order that bars the Justice Department from using the material to conduct its investigation.

We'll have the latest legal developments, including Donald Trump's not so subtle threat about violence if he gets indicted. And the battle over border security. There is new reporting that top Homeland Security officials are calling on the White House to take a page from the Republican playbook. We'll have the internal debate as the number of migrants crossing the southern border soars and as some Republican governors resort to political stunts with people's lives. We'll talk about that later this morning. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be our guest. We look forward to talking with her as well. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Friday, September 16th. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kaye in London and the host

of Way Too Early, White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire. Also with us, the president of the National Action Network and host of Politics Nation, Reverend Al Sharpton joins us this morning. You know, Willie, what people say about our show is that Morning Joe show is the most mindful show where we teach everybody that two things can be true at one time. OK, but we're not always that mindful. And we're going to be talking about that. We're going to be talking about the crisis at the southern border.

And by the way, I understand every two years, Yes, there's the convoy, the convoy stories from certain networks of lepers coming to the states. And it's always ridiculous. It's always timed for for elections every two years, just like clockwork. This time's different. We have a crisis at the southern border. We've had a crisis at the southern border. And it's a crisis at the southern border. And it's gotten so bad now that there's some infighting in the administration over how to stop just this this torrent of of of migrants coming across the border in a very uncontrolled, unsafe way that creates a humanitarian crisis. So that's the truth in one of our hands. Truth in the other one, in our other hand, is the fact that you have some politicians

that are engaging in political human trafficking, grotesque, getting migrants who have come from their countries with kids, putting them on buses and taking them up outside the Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C., and just dropping them off to make a political point with lives. And it's just it's yet another example. I think most Americans are like me. I want order at the southern border. I don't think people should come in illegally, but it is grotesque to grab these people, throw them on buses, drive them up to Washington, D.C., and just drop them outside of an official residence, vice president's residence. It's grotesque what they're doing with these human beings is this is political human

trafficking well with that joe how about telling a group of desperate people who've arrived in the united states get on this plane we're sending you to new york or boston where you will be well taken care of they're better equipped there to look out for you they'll have jobs and a new life for you and then being dropped on an island off the coast of Massachusetts, an island that was given no warning, by the way, that these people were coming. So, yes, the grotesque is the word for that. And as you say, though, Joe, we are going to cross two million border encounters, two million people coming across the border. That's an all time record by a long shot. So it is a crisis. Vice President Harris said to Chuck Todd a few days ago that the border is secure. It objectively is not secure. So there's a problem. The question is now how to go about fixing it. Yeah, there has been a crisis, like you said, and and it's a crisis that

needs to be fixed. We don't fix it by using the migrants as political pawns and dropping them off for, you know, just so you can own the libs. You don't own the libs with human lives, dropping them off in a place that wasn't prepared, didn't know they were coming. You don't own the libs by dropping them off in the middle of a street on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C. So you can say, hey, we own the libs. We dropped these babies. We dropped these children off in the middle of the street outside of the vice president's home. That's really grotesque. And, you know, the thing that's always been weird is if you look at if you look at just poll numbers, the overwhelming majority of Americans understand what Ronald Reagan understood in his final address to the nation. And that is that we want immigrants

in this country. They need to come here legally and there needs to be an order to it. But the majority of Americans aren't anti-immigrant. It is, again, a third of the country, this same third of the country that it seems Donald Trump's been trying to appeal to for too long. It's really, really simple. We're going to be talking about that. I mean, you're talking about a special master and what a bizarre ruling. The ruling just keeps getting stranger. Let's go to Katty Kay really quickly, though, and just give her a warning. Yeah. Katty, here's our warning. We're coming to London. We understand a lot of other people in London. We'll be there on Monday. Oh, my gosh. Just when you thought it was safe to get away from us. But but, Katty, I that's what all the queues are for, Joe. I've been it's really weird. I've

been watching like these queues going on for hours. Now I understand. This is exactly you. Of course. Of course. But speaking of speaking of those queues, I have friends that tell me that people at four in the morning are lined up like for hours and hours and hours to see the queen, that the lines are nothing short of remarkable. They had to shut one down today because it goes on too long. Yeah, I mean, seriously, they've just announced a pause, a six hour pause. No one can join the back of the queue because it's so long and people are waiting up to 20, 30 hours in these queues. It is. It is. And the queues themselves are quiet, calm, orderly. The mood is good. People,

I've been amazed having just flown in this morning. There are flowers everywhere laid to the queen. It really is a moment where the whole country and it's not people are not in tears like they were after Diana died. It's not, you're not seeing kind of gnashing of teeth and wailing going on around the streets. It's very dignified and almost a joyful celebration of somebody. Clearly, Brits are prepared to spend 20 hours in a queue overnight to go and say goodbye. And really more than that, to go and say thank you. That's why they're here. Well, we'll be following this throughout the day. And of course, we'll see you there, Katty. But let's get back to the big story here in the States. A federal judge has appointed a third party to review the documents the FBI sees from

former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home and club in Florida. Judge Aileen Cannon named Raymond Deary as the special master. He's a senior U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of New York. Trump's attorneys had proposed Deary and Justice Department officials signaled their approval for him. Among the responsibilities laid out by Judge Cannon will be to determine if any of the documents are protected by attorney, client, or executive privilege. Deary has until November 30th to review the materials. Willie? Judge Cannon also denied the Justice Department's request for continued access to the more than 100 classified documents seized from Mar-a-Lago to use in its ongoing criminal investigation.

But the judge insisted her order does not restrict the government from continuing to review the seized materials for intelligence classification and national security assessments or from briefing members of Congress about them. Specifically, she said the order blocks the DOJ from presenting materials to a grand jury and using them for witness interviews in the criminal investigation, pending the special master's recommendation. The DOJ is expected to appeal the ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Let's bring in NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney. And so, Ken, there are kind of two parts to what the judge handed down yesterday. Let's start with the second one, and that is the blocking of the appeal for justice to look at these 100 documents, the classified documents, to continue the investigation. On what grounds did she make

that ruling? Willie, this judge really stuck it to the Justice Department on this one. The DOJ told her that the nation was suffering irreparable harm and that national security was at risk. She clearly didn't buy that argument. And she said that, in fact, the DOJ has not demonstrated that. She said that they have made no allegation, for example, that any of these classified documents has fallen into the wrong hands. And she sort of jabbed them a little bit to say that the only leaks have been about this investigation. Of course, the Justice Department would say that's exactly what they're investigating. They don't know the answer to what happened with those documents. But she she has turned down their

request to allow them to use the around 100 classified documents in their criminal investigation. And they are going to appeal that, I have no doubt. But she did throw them a little bit of a bone, a small one. She said that her order does not prohibit the intelligence community from continuing with its damage assessment. Remember that the DOJ had said that had been halted because of the order. And she said that the FBI can help with that and they can do a lot of different things. They just can't use the contents of the documents. The problem is the contents of the classified documents are crucial to trying to understand what the damage is to national security. If you're interviewing witnesses about what secrets might have gotten out of Mar-a-Lago, you need to know what those secrets are and be able to talk about them. Yeah. You know, Ken, if you could give it, give our viewers some context here about I hate to say it this way,

because, as you know, I mean, as an attorney, you don't want to cast dispersions on judges because maybe they know something that you don't. I must say, though, reading the documents, looking at the pleadings, this ruling just appears to be absolutely bizarre. And maybe I'm wrong, but I can tell you every Intel expert I talk to say this is really dangerous what she's done. You look at legal experts on both sides of the aisle from Donald Trump's own attorney general to to to to law professors all across the political spectrum. People say she's clearly reading the law wrong and she's doing it. Intel experts say in a way that can harm America's national security. Yeah, Joe, you know, it's one thing for a judge to be skeptical of the government's claims.

We want that. We want the government to have to meet a high burden when they're investigating somebody for potential criminal violations. But in this case, she's essentially saying we can't trust the Justice Department, including its National Security Division, to go through a set of documents and tell us which ones are privileged and which ones they should be reviewing, even when they're classified. That is not the normal stance of the courts. Normally, judges defer to the executive branch when it comes to national security and classified information because the judge doesn't have that expertise. The FBI counterintelligence division, they do this for a living, right? And this judge is saying, we can't trust you guys. We have to have this special master come in. Now, Judge Raymond Deary is a respected semi-retired senior judge here in New York. Both sides had agreed that he would he was

appropriate for this role. And she did instruct that he review the classified documents first. So it's possible that this really just amounts to a speed bump and not a roadblock in this investigation because he could easily speed through the documents, find that none of them are privileged and hand them over and the DOJ goes on its merry way. But as a matter of law and as a matter of precedent here, it really seems that the DOJ is going to appeal this because they think this is just a bad decision. Right. So at the worst, potentially, this could just drag things out more, which is definitely a possible tactic. But I'm curious, is it possible that the DOJ did not meet the high burden necessary for a decision that would go their way?

I mean, we'll have to see what the 11th Circuit says in Atlanta, which is full of a majority of Trump appointed judges. But most legal experts I'm talking to don't see it that way. They really are mystified, especially this idea that that some of these classified documents could be subject to executive privilege through a former president. That that's really never been tested in the law. There's Supreme Court decisions that seem to argue against that. So we'll have to wait and see, Mika. But again, the consensus in the legal community seems to be that this judge is on fairly thin ice here. Yeah, unfair. Yeah. On thin ice legally. And Mika, even I mean, the 11th Circuit's one of the most conservative circuits in the country. And yet people who have worked with the 11th Circuit, who know the 11th Circuit

tells me that they would not be surprised at all, even with them being as conservative as they are, if they didn't reverse this ruling, because it is so out of balance. Interesting. All right. NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney. And thank you very much. Former President Trump is warning of, quote, big problems in the United States if he is indicted for his mishandling of classified documents. Here's what he said. Listen carefully on the Hugh Hewitt show yesterday. You know the old saying, prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if they want to. I'm just asking if there is such a prosecutor

and they indict you, would that deter you from running for president again? I don't think the people of the United States would stand for it. And as you know, if a thing like that happened, I would have no prohibition against running. You know that. I do. And that's what I want people to understand.

That would not take you out of the arena. It would not. But I think if it happened, I think you'd have problems in this country, the likes of which perhaps we've never seen before. I don't think the people of the United States would stand for it. What kind of problems, Mr. President? I think they'd have big problems, big problems. I just don't think they'd stand for it. They will not.

They will not sit still and stand for this ultimate of hoaxes. So, Reverend Al, Donald, poor Donald, he thinks he's Louis XIV. I am the state. That if Donald has problems, America has. Now, problems would go straight to Donald. He'd be the one in legal jeopardy. But I found it very interesting, really bizarre. And it struck me the first time I heard it that you notice he never said, Hugh, if I'm indicted, we as a country would have big problems.

He said you'd have big problems. The people of the U.S. He'd say he said you'd have big problems. And he said they'd have the big problems as if he's he's somehow separated from this country. Any other normal human being would be saying, you know, if this happens, we have big problems as a country. He really does. He sees himself bigger than the presidency, bigger than the law, bigger than the United States of America and thinks he can break the law. And if Americans try to hold him accountable under the law, that they would have big problems. Your reaction? I think you're clearly right about his mindset. And it's the same mindset that tells Americans to storm the Capitol and stop the certification of an election that was democratically held and you

had more people vote than at any point in the history of the country in a presidential election. It's protect me against them, them being the country that he was the president of. And rather than identify with the country, as you rightfully pointed out, it's like they need to know who they're dealing with, like he's some omnipotent of the presence. And it is really very telling that the same mentality that would say they will have problems if they indict me is saying they cannot certify an election against me because I am all of this and more in my own mind. Is this delusion and illusion that I think that we're looking at that incited him to incite September 6th? And he keeps repeating his mindset to give us an idea of how he thinks. Jonathan, this is the same threat we heard last week from Lindsey Graham when he talked about riots in the streets of President Trump is indicted. These are they

used to be implicit, now just explicit threats that if you do this, if you actually prosecute someone who took classified documents from the White House and brought them to Mar-a-Lago and then obstructed efforts to get them back, you've seen what Trump's people have done. That's the wink right on January 6th. You don't want that again. And then Donald Trump just came out and said it out loud yesterday. Yeah, this is exceedingly dangerous. It's not just Trump making the point that he can run again for president, even if he's indicted. That got a lot of the headlines yesterday from this interview. But it's this it's calling his supporters, almost putting them on notice again. Hey,

if this happens, I'd have to take to the streets. It'll be trouble supporters, almost putting them on notice again. Hey, if this happens, might have to take to the streets. It'll be trouble for them because it's also, to Joe's point about the vocabulary Trump uses, it's team red, team blue. It's team MAGA. It's them. He uses words like traitors, enemy of the state. He threw them around so loosely while he was president and still doing so. And let's recall also those comments from Senator Graham predicting riots if Trump were indicted. Trump has amplified them on his Truth Social Media site. He's talked about in other interviews.

He is not shying away from that at all. And he leaned in hard yesterday. And we know that he condoned violence at his rallies. We remember his nod, nudge, nod and wink to the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by during the presidential debate in 2020. And we know how many of them participated in the January 6th riots. This feels like a call to arms again. And we know federal law enforcement deeply concerned about increased political violence as we head towards this election and in 2024.

Yeah. And, you know, it is. Jonathan laid it out perfectly, Mika, as far as as far as the threats. Of course, we had all the fascist fascist rhetoric during the campaigns, punch him in the face. I love when they carry him out in stretchers, beat him up and beat him up and I'll pay. But, Katty K, it must sound very jarring to our allies across the world when they have a president telling white supremacist groups during presidential debates to stand by when you have Republican senators saying if Donald Trump, if a politician is held to the same standard we're held to and it's not above the law, then Republicans will run out and riot in the streets.

And then Donald Trump amplifies that on social media. And then Donald Trump goes on a radio show and he offers more threats, talking about big problems like you have never seen if he's indicted. And the thing is, it would be easy to dismiss those threats, except that we've seen it happen, right? We know that it's possible and the rest of the world knows that it's possible because they all watched January the 6th as well. So when Donald Trump says something like there could be huge problems, the reaction from abroad is, yeah, I guess there could be huge problems because we've seen it happen already in the country. It's interesting, you know, periodically I come to Europe and I get the kind of feedback on what's happening in America.

And every now and again, there's a spike in anti-American feeling. There was around 2003 in the invasion of Iraq. There was when Donald Trump was elected. There was a kind of titillation factor of, wow, this is kind of crazy. But when I'm over here now, there's something much more profound. And it's a sadness and a concern about the strength of the democratic infrastructure holding in America. There are real questions about, does democracy hold? Are the organs of democracy strong enough to resist these threats of violence.

And it does cause concern. It takes some of the gloss off the American experiment. It takes some of the gloss off the strength of America as an ally. America is leading in so many ways, Joe. You know this. In the war in Ukraine, America is leading. In tech technology, America is still leading. It is still the country that people want to go to. It's still the country people want to go and study in.

But there are questions about how solid America's democracy is. And it's statements like those that we just heard from Donald Trump. There will be big problems if something doesn't happen to me. And because we saw it happen on January the 6th, that's what makes people concerned. I think how America is leading in Ukraine, Joe, has been vastly underplayed because of the thought that there is a lack of interest here in America and what's going on there. But President Biden has handled that. And the United States military and our leaders have really been on the forefront of making sure NATO is strong

and that there is success in Ukraine. And it's a bipartisan success. If you look in the Senate, Republicans have stepped forward shoulder to shoulder. Almost all of them have stepped forward. That's a bipartisan success, bipartisan success with legislation that has passed over the past couple of years, our dollar experiencing a generation long. Just it's just it's more powerful than it's been in over a generation. There are so many good things that are going on in this country, more job openings than ever before, a stronger job market than ever before. And yet the division is. And yet again, again, though you have Washington, Washington, D.C. is dysfunctional. Americans don't have the government they deserve and they don't have bluntly the opposition, the loyal opposition that they that they deserve when you actually have

a third or half talking about civil war. Get this, because they lost one election. I know. They lost one election and now they're ready to throw Western democracy away. We will continue this conversation still ahead on Morning Joe. On this Friday morning, Vladimir Putin reveals China has voiced concern over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine. That's a very bad day. We will go live to Beijing on the heels of that summit yesterday.

We'll also be joined by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has never been afraid to call out the Russian president. She joins the conversation later this morning. Also ahead, President Biden denounces racism and white supremacy during the event at the White House. Reverend Al Sharpton was there and spoke with the president yesterday. We'll talk more about the administration's push to end hate based violence. Plus, we'll take a look at this morning's front page headlines across the country, including an alarming story about candycolored drugs being used to target children. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back.

By fireflies, they're advertising in the skies for people like us. And I miss you. It's a beautiful live picture of the United States Capitol as the sun just starts to come up over Washington. There is growing friction between the White House and senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security over how to handle the number of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. That is according to internal documents and communications reviewed by NBC News. According to two U.S. officials, the White House recently has hosted a series of high-level meetings on immigration, where DHS officials have presented options, including flying migrants to the country's northern border with Canada to alleviate overcrowding at the southern border. Internal documents obtained by NBC News show some DHS officials have openly expressed frustration with the White House's reluctance to send migrants to cities within the United States, just like some Republican governors have done.

Let's bring in the reporter who broke this story, NBC News Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainslie. Julia, good morning. So tell us more about these conversations inside the White House, because what these proposals sound an awful lot like are what Greg Abbott, Ron DeSantis and others are doing right now. Yeah, that's right, Willie. It might sound like that, but in reality, what DHS officials are pushing is something that would be much more organized. Personnel meeting them, processing them, getting them to shelters who expect them to be coming to get them the resources they need to get them to final destinations, oftentimes with family members where they can await their immigration court proceedings. It's not like the chaos we're seeing now in New York, Chicago, D.C., and now Martha's Vineyard. They've been pushing this for a while, but the White House has been hesitant. They want to wait until there's a 9,000 number crossing the border each day. Right now, we understand some days are approaching 8,000,

even crossing over that. But DHS wants to start planning now, and they actually think the time to start doing this interior processing is now. We were able to see through internal communications and documents that there's quite a bit of frustration where DHS feels like they continue to come up with solutions, but that the White House is hesitant to take these options. So can you give us a little bit of perspective about what's going on at the southern border? I thought, you know, for a while after Biden got in that this was just the noise machine going on that, you know, Donald, obviously Republicans didn't talk about illegal immigration being terrible when Barack Obama was president

because it was at a 50 year low in 2016. But then we started seeing the caravans every two years around election time. But talk about the numbers. I mean, the numbers really are bad. This isn't just a right wing talking point. There's been chaos at the border now for well over a year, and it's caused real concerns in agencies. Can you explain why that's happening? That's right. I'd be happy to, Joe. So if you take just one section of the border we can look at right now, El Paso, I was just down there at the beginning of the summer when they were at what was then record highs. They were seeing about a thousand border crossings a day and they were having to release some migrants at the street, on the street. Now they're at 1300 migrants a day.

They've done almost a thousand street releases over the past week. They have migrants amassing right in their urban center in downtown El Paso. When they release these migrants, they push them to bus stations where they can find their way after they've gone through a screening to make sure they're not a threat to national security. But basically, it's just sowing more chaos. And to put this in perspective, if we're looking at numbers across a border of 8,000 a day, Jay Johnson has said right here on this show that his red line, the time where he called in all of his top people to come up with solutions, it was when numbers crossed 1,000 a day. But still, just to put this in overall perspective from another angle, when we're talking about

record highs, the highest month we've seen so far was May, 240,000 border crossings. An average year would probably be about 100,000 less than that. Yes, that's a lot of people. But if you think about the overall landscape and demographics and population of the United States, that's not enough to overall change the country or to change the way we do business here. So I think that should also be taken into perspective that we see some of this chaos. Sometimes it's just a matter of managing people and figuring out how the United States can work with partner countries to deal with some of the issues that are driving people here in the first place, the desperation, the political crises that they're escaping. We know in the case of Venezuelans that are making up the majority of those going to Martha's Vineyard, crossing into El Paso,

that's a country that is not taking people back. And so therefore, they can't be pushed back into Mexico under those COVID-19 restrictions known as Title 42 because Mexico won't take them back. There's a lot of dynamics at play here. But I think the bottom line is we need to figure out how to have what Biden came in promising, which is a safe, orderly and humane immigration system. All right, Julie, thank you so much for your great reporting. And Mika, that is that is a challenge. It needs to be safe. It needs to be orderly. It's not safe and orderly right now. There is a humanitarian crisis at the border. The administration is going to have to pay more attention to it. That being said, Julia is right.

Again, putting this in perspective, 320 million people in the country. We are having more migrants, illegal immigrants coming in than we usually do in years. Percentage wise, is it going to radically change the demographic makeup of this country? No, it's not. But it is causing real problems at the border. No one's been out of that reality. And if progressives think that this is some right-wing talking point,

they should talk to Hispanics on the border, American citizens who are equally concerned, and who are starting to vote Republican. This is an issue Democrats have to stop ignoring. And now to the other side of it, because two things can be true at once. It's also an issue that Republicans need to stop using in a way that is inhumane. And really, it's just sick. It's really just sick.

They're engaging in political human trafficking, getting these people, driving them, dropping them off in the middle of streets, thousand miles away so they can own the libs. Yeah. Not giving a damn about the children, not giving a damn about the families at all. I think it comes at a time when the Democrats have a lot of wins under their belt and the Republicans have some issues that are really helping them, making them lose ground. And this is a headline grabber. Right. They're right. They want to distract from abortion. There's no doubt about it. You look and you look at their candidates who are losing. This is a bright, shiny object. And they think that if they do this, they think if they treat

human beings, if they treat children inhumanely, if they engage in human trafficking for political purposes, they think that they think somehow that's going to have a forced birth of your rapist baby, or you're going to have to flee the state. They're the Michigan Republican candidates saying that a 14-year-old girl who is raped by her uncle is a perfect example of why there must be forced births. This is the same party that just made up, made up whole cloth stories about IRS agents going to Iowa, kicking down doors with AR-15s and killing people.

And now they're doing this? This memo to Republicans, this doesn't make you look good. Willie, what they're doing with the migrants is misleading them, putting them on a plane and sending them to a place they have no idea where they are. Yeah, I mean, think about even some Democrats in border states last night came out and said, yeah, we've got a real problem down here. Let's acknowledge that first. Those are some Democrats. But this is obviously not the way to go about addressing it. I mean, you talk about a 10-year-old girl.

How about telling a 10-year-old girl and her mother who made a trip by foot from Colombia, lost a relative on the way, as we heard from one family yesterday, being told, we're going to put you on this plane. You're in Texas. You're going to Boston or New York. They have said they're ready for you.

There are jobs up there. The new life you dreamed of awaits you. And then you're dropped on the island of Martha's Vineyard. The other thing to point out, guys, I think should be said is I think Governor DeSantis and others thought, you know, the people of Martha's Vineyard would be disgusted by this. And how could you do this? And that would prove their point. Well, the opposite has happened up there. Martha's Vineyard with no warning whatsoever. And by the way, this is happening in New York City. It's happening in Chicago and Boston to open their arms. They converted buildings into shelters. They donated food. They donated clothing. They're going to try to help these people make it to their next step, whatever that is.

So the arms have been opened. But obviously, that's a bandaid and a temporary solution to a massive problem at the border. This clearly is not the way to go about fixing it unless you're just in it for the headline and the stunt. Well, really quickly, Reverend Al, there's a Bible verse and I'm sure the pastors up up in Massachusetts and and in D.C. and Chicago and New York are all saying it, following up on what Willie just said. What you meant for evil, the Lord has used for good. Joseph talking to his brothers. What DeSantis and the Texas governor meant for evil, God has used for good. People have opened their arms. The good Samaritans have opened their arms. They've taken care of all of those people that Jesus tells us to take care of

in Matthew 25. Absolutely. Getting hope to the hopeless, Rev. And that's what, again, that's what these people who claim to be Christians don't understand. Absolutely. And but, you know, it is also brings back to mind. And I think Alex Wagner did a piece on this last night that during the fight around segregation, the segregationists bused people to Massachusetts to say, you're going to meet with John Kennedy. And they told the blacks that you're going to meet with President John Kennedy and you're going to get a discussion about the things that you're concerned about. And it was a bogus trip. They got to Massachusetts. There was no John Kennedy. There was no discussion. And they're using these migrants in the same way with the same false promises. It's also interesting that they go to Martha's Vineyard, which is known as a resort for successful blacks.

The the the most well-known person there now is Barack Obama. And they've targeted three cities, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and New York, all with black mayors. So a lot of little racial notation ought to be raised here on what they did that reminds me of the segregationist strategy in the 60s of using buses. And now we're seeing black mayors being overwhelmed about this. This does not take away from the fact we have legitimate problems at the border. The border is not secure. But how you respond to that and who you target in that response

is very interesting and troubling to me. Absolutely. Time now for a look at the morning papers in Mississippi. The Clarion-Ledger reports that Jackson's boil water notice has been lifted after nearly seven weeks. The decision comes after two consecutive days of clean water tests from more than 100 sites throughout the city. Officials say Jackson's water system is still fragile and a private team now manages the city's main water treatment plant. The Daily Advertiser highlights the story of a Louisiana woman who was forced to travel over 1,000 miles for an abortion. Nancy Davis, whose fetus did not develop a skull in her womb, traveled to New York to receive an abortion after a Louisiana hospital denied her the procedure. Are you kidding me? This is your border problem, Republicans. Are you kidding me?

Because the fetus still had a heartbeat. No brain, but a heartbeat. That is inhumane. More than 1,000 people donated nearly $40,000 for Davis to make her trip and receive the procedure. Poor woman. In Tennessee, the Chattanooga Times Free Press reports that Republican Senator Bill Hagerty says he will support Senator Lindsey Graham's 15-week abortion ban bill. In an interview yesterday, Hagerty characterized the procedure as infanticide. The South Florida Sun Sentinel leads with a new warning about rainbow fentanyl that has been detected

in 18 states. Officials say they've been finding fentanyl that is colored to look like candy and caution that children may be the intended target. The drug has been found in actual candy, such as jelly ranchers, and has been seen molded into gummy bears. What a sick. And the news journal reports that Delaware, a Delaware judge has ruled a new vote by mail law enacted earlier this year is unconstitutional and that voting by mail cannot be used in the upcoming November election. At the same time, the judge upheld the state's new same day voter registration law. Up next, NBC's Janice Mackey-Frayer joins us live from Beijing. A big story there following what the State Department calls a striking admission from Russia's Vladimir Putin about his meeting with the leader of China.

Morning Joe will be right back. Vladimir Putin met China's leader, Xi Jinping, for their first in-person meeting since the invasion of Ukraine. The two met on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit in Uzbekistan yesterday, where several other leaders, including those from Iran, India and Pakistan, also took part. The meeting did not appear to go well for Putin. While she initially pledged a friendship with no limits just three weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine, the Chinese president withheld any public support for Putin's war yesterday. Putin acknowledged China had, quote, questions and concerns about Russia's war in Ukraine,

a notable admission that Moscow may lack full backing from China. After the meeting, China issued a statement saying it is, quote, willing to work with Russia to demonstrate the responsibility of a major country, play a leading role and inject stability into a turbulent world. The New York Times reports that to scholars who study the between the lines messaging of the Chinese government's public remarks, it sounded like an implicit rebuke. The paper also notes, so far this year, China appears to have refrained from shipping weapons to Russia, forcing Moscow to ask Iran and North Korea for military equipment. It also has done little to help Russia circumvent Western sanctions. Joining us now from Beijing, NBC News foreign correspondent Janice Mackey-Frayer. Janice, good to see you. This is as close as it gets to humility from Vladimir Putin. He said

you have questions and concerns. He said that to Xi Jinping, acknowledging that China does not support the war in Ukraine fully. China and Russia still have strong strategic ties. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping share the same worldview, especially when it comes to the United States. And they consider each other old friends. But this meeting made it look like a very unequal partnership. Now, Putin definitely had more at stake going into this meeting with Xi. He's considered a pariah in the West and is now pivoting to allies in the East. In Beijing, he has not had public condemnation of the invasion,

but the extent of Beijing's support hasn't been clear either. So when Putin made this rare admission that he was aware that China had concerns and questions, it revealed quite a lot. It showed that Beijing is actually anxious about how the Russian invasion is going, that it does not intend to offer further material support or tactical support, and that Beijing and especially Xi Jinping is not going to lean in too far to what could be a losing side. And Russian forces are very much in retreat right now in Ukraine. There's also more than Moscow at play here. with leaders of post-Soviet republics who are neighbors, who are trading partners, and who are very uncomfortable with strengthening Russia's footprint.

I thought it was telling that last night on the main news broadcast here on CCTV. In over 40 minutes of coverage of Xi Jinping's trip to Central Asia, there was not one mention of the meeting with Vladimir Putin. And in the Chinese readout of the meeting, the word Ukraine was not one mention of the meeting with Vladimir Putin. And in the Chinese readout of the meeting, the word Ukraine was not used at all. So where this leaves Putin is a bit unclear. He still has the support of China. China is still buying Russian oil and gas. They're doing heavy trade in products. They're giving the diplomatic backing at the U.N. and amplifying Russian propaganda here. But that support will only go so far when it serves Chinese interests.

And Beijing, as you mentioned, is also being very cautious about showing at least de facto compliance with Western sanctions because they don't want to trigger secondary sanctions here with the economy already weak from all of these covid restrictions. And of course, the very important Communist Party Congress next month, where Xi Jinping is expected to secure that precedent breaking third term in power. Janice, with the Ukrainians making gains on the ground in Ukraine and Western European nations in the United States fully committed, at least for the short term, to funding the Ukrainians, if Russia has now gone to China and found more of a frosty reception, what could it mean for him in his war effort? Could it mean at some point that he perhaps isn't able to make as much money out of his oil and gas exports to China as he has been if China

actually were to decide to turn against Russia in some way in its war effort in Ukraine. Well, Putin did definitely come away with the meeting with with far less. He he went to this summit hoping to appear that he was still a global player and still a superpower. What he left with was a bit of a cold shoulder from the Chinese president and no promise of any tactical support or material support, the sort of support he needs right now. In terms of buying Russian oil and gas, that will still continue to happen for China's part. But it's going to take a lot for Russia to try to pivot the flow of oil and gas. It has always built its infrastructure toward Europe, and now it's having to change and

build that infrastructure toward the east. So it's unclear whether Putin feels empowered by this meeting with Xi Jinping. The relationship is no weaker, but it's certainly no stronger. Well, Janice, I was struck by the almost condescending language of the statement after which seemed to go even worse than the actual meeting. The condescending language from China that Russia needs to show, quote, the responsibility of a major country and that they need to, quote, inject stability into the into the global system. This is this is quite striking. A remarkable statement. In effect, China is saying you're destabilizing the world and you need to need to start acting like you're a major power. What what what what is that driven by? Is that, again,

the fear of the sanctions? Does China hope possibly to bring this war to a close at some point and to play a role in those negotiations? That statement that it was so detached and the language is so formal was quite striking. These are two men who usually have quite a warm relationship when they're together. You'll remember in Beijing in February, they released a 5000 word manifesto and declared a partnership with no limits. But it appears the partnership does have limits. Beijing is anxious about how the Russian invasion is going. It doesn't want to back a loser. Xi Jinping does not want anything on his path to that third term in power.

And part of the rationale of doing this trip to Central Asia, to a neighboring country, his first trip out of China since the beginning of the pandemic was that he could show himself as re-emerging as the global statesman, that he could shore up his foreign policy credentials and show that those credentials for China go beyond China's relationship with Russia. So Xi Jinping also doing some political maneuvering here at the expense, it seems, of Vladimir Putin. All right. NBC's Janice McAfee in Beijing, as always. Thank you so much, Jonathan O'Meara. I again, the language from China striking, talking about the need for Russia to show, quote, the responsibility of a major country.

Don't think that's what he was looking for. No. And also a lecture about them needing to inject stability into the global system. We've heard that America's relationship with China is fraying, but certainly when it comes to this war against Ukraine, this invasion of Ukraine by Putin, the Chinese leadership seems to be deferential to the needs and the concerns of this country. Yeah. U.S. officials carefully watching what happened yesterday. I was in touch with them as it was unfolding, noting that Xi Jinping initially calls Putin an old friend. But that was about the only thing Putin got out of Xi Jinping yesterday. U.S. officials were struck by the language that you just cited there in terms of China trying to

keep its distance. And they repeated to me yesterday, they have seen no evidence that China has violated sanctions in order to supply Russia with military equipment. Now, they are still providing Russia with financial backing, buying energy and other things from Russia there. So the U.S. still dismayed that China is helping in that regard and certainly hasn't condemned the invasion. But they do think that this further isolates Putin on the world stage. And it comes, of course, just a few days before the United Nations General Assembly gathers in New York.

And President Biden, aides tell me, are going to use the moment of his speech set for next Wednesday to, again, try to rally the world, not just keeping the West in line and Europe facing a cold winter, making sure they stay with Ukraine, but also offering a bit of a scolding to the countries who haven't fully come on board. That includes China. That includes India and the like. So this is a moment here where the U.S. feels like Ukraine's got momentum. They're going to have potentially some winds here heading into the winter, and they want to press their advantage as best they can. All right. Still ahead, Fulton County's district attorney gives an update on the special grand

jury probe into efforts to interfere in Georgia's 2020 election results. What she's saying about the potential for jail time for certain individuals. Plus, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be our guest this morning. And we have so much to talk with her about. Morning Joe is coming right back.