Morning Joe - Morning Joe 9/21/22

Episode Date: September 21, 2022

Putin mobilizes more troops for Ukraine war, threatens nuclear retaliation and backs annexation of Russian-occupied land

It's a busy time in New York City because leaders from all around the world are in town for the U.N. General Assembly. Yeah. And I just want to say on behalf of all New Yorkers, this could have been a Zoom. Have we learned nothing? Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Wednesday, September 21st, the last official day of summer. There is so much happening today. It is the first

in-person meeting of the United Nations General Assembly since the pandemic. And President Biden is set to speak this morning, just as Vladimir Putin announced a major escalation in the war in Ukraine. This all happening overnight, calling up reservists and threatening a possible nuclear response as he suffers major setbacks on the battlefield and in the geopolitical landscape. Plus, the latest in the Trump documents case, as it goes before the special master, the former president's attorneys refuse to back up their claim that Trump declassified the documents before taking them to his club in Florida. We'll have the reaction from the judge, and it is quite telling. Also, the attorney general of New York is set to make a major announcement later this morning as she investigates possible fraud within the Trump organization.

We'll discuss what that announcement might be and new developments in the story of the migrants flown to Martha's Vineyard with some who were sent to the Massachusetts islands now filing a class action lawsuit against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. We'll have all the details on that. With us, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House Speer Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, former aide to the George W. Bush White House and State Department's Elise Jordan. She's an MSNBC political analyst. Willie is making his way back from London. Joe has COVID. I'm testing negative so far, but not feeling great. So I'll keep you posted. But let's get right to the news.

We begin with the major overnight move by Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced he is calling up hundreds of thousands of reservists while also approving a move to annex portions of Ukraine in a rare pre-recorded address. Putin claimed the West is, quote, trying to destroy us and that, quote, Russia will use all the instruments at its disposal to counter a threat against its territorial integrity. This is not a bluff. The potential nuclear threat comes amid major setbacks for the Kremlin on the battlefield. Russia is also planning to hold sham referendums beginning Friday on parts of Ukraine joining Russia. These votes are illegal under both Ukrainian and international law. A spokesman for the president of Ukraine said the referendum would effectively eliminate any chance for a

diplomatic end to the war. Let's bring in the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. Richard, what do you make of this, especially given the fact that world leaders are beginning to turn their back to Vladimir Putin, he's in a corner and the quote, this is not a bluff. What's your response? Well, I think it is a bluff. I think it's to intimidate the West, to intimidate Ukraine. I think the most interesting thing out of all of the pronouncements, Mika, is the call for a partial mobilization. Up to now, Putin's basically wanted to run this war on the cheap. He's called it a special military operation. The fact that he's now talking about bringing up the reserves and veterans, several hundred thousand to me,

is testament to how badly the war is going. And that he's willing to take the risk of real domestic opposition to the war. That's less of a risk for him than to simply let things continue and to lose the war because he can't lose the war, I believe, and hold on to his military, his political position. All the attacks that have been coming against him recently have come from the right, from these bloggers and other conservatives. So I think Putin's basically decided to double down and he's trying to intimidate us. And I think we have to continue to help Ukraine. I'd say one other thing, and this may seem somewhat radical. I think the United States and NATO need to tell Putin, if you were ever to use nuclear weapons, we're not going to respond in kind. We don't want nuclear weapons to be commonplace. But if you were to do so, we would drop our self-imposed inhibition and restraint of not joining the war. We would then

enter this war on Ukraine's side physically, and we would liberate every square inch of Ukrainian territory, including anything you have annexed through the sham referendum. I think we need to essentially respond to Putin's bluff. I'm curious how these referendums are going to go, what you think the Russian people are, how their response might play out. Are they so completely blacked out of news that they won't have any skepticism about this? And finally, the position that U.S. President Joe Biden is in as he's set to speak today, how does he carefully navigate without making too many blanket promises? Well, in terms of the referendum, I think some Russians or many, many Russians will say, why not? These are ethnically Russian areas to a significant extent.

Putin has so manipulated and controlled the political narrative, the information flow at home. It'll have some resonance. The bigger problem, though, again, is the war is not going well. Ukraine's already responded negatively to these calls for referendum. I don't think it changes anything. I think for Biden, for President Biden at the U.N. today, he's going to try to buck up the West, both the United States and Europe. Europe's going to go through a long, cold winter. President Zelensky has started calling this the winter of our discontent. And what I think the president needs to do, by the way, what exactly the secretary general of the United Nations failed

miserably to do, is talk about how significant it is for the world to stand up, not to let this aggression stand. The president will also talk about climate change. I expect we'll also try to clean up some of his remarks the other night about Taiwan so as not to cause a new crisis with China. But I think the focus will be on bucking up the United States and more broadly Europe to stand up to this, to the Russian intimidation and Russian shut off of its energy exports. Elise Jordan, you can take it to Richard, but you worked at the State Department, you know, on the eve of the president making a major speech like this to have such late breaking news and such a at least a verbal escalation.

What are your thoughts on what happens behind the scenes here? Well, Putin certainly knows that his actions are dominating the conversations behind the scenes at the UN General Assembly right now. And you've got so many diplomats and world leaders rushing around and talking about what he's doing. And I imagine a lot of different remarks are being shuffled around, too. But Richard, what I would say to you is, wouldn't right now be the best possible time for Ukraine to actually negotiate with Russia coming from a point of strength after reclaiming some territory and Putin clearly operating from weakness at this stage in the war? I don't think so, Elise. First of all, Putin still controls 20 percent of Ukraine. He still controls probably 97, 90 percent of the

land that he's taken since 2014. Ukraine's not interested in negotiating. I met with the foreign minister a couple of days ago. I was in Ukraine last week and met with the entire leadership. They're not interested in negotiating. They basically understand that the negotiating table will only reflect the battlefield. What they want to do is reverse Russian military gains. And then they'll say, yeah, we're happy to have a peace settlement based upon the complete liberation of our territory. Anything else? We're not interested in half a loaf or three quarters of a loaf. That's obviously not something Putin could accept. That would constitute for defeat for him. I simply think all this talk about negotiation and diplomacy

is way, way, way premature. It's a pipe dream. Neither side is prepared to compromise. So, Jonathan Lemire, with this late breaking news and the president set to address the United Nations General Assembly today, obviously he was going to confront the Ukraine situation, but he was also going to talk about the global food crisis, climate crisis, and yet it's all connected. So what are you hearing behind the scenes? Yeah, obviously, this news from Putin overnight came during the middle of the night here in New York, where all the world leaders, including President Biden, are sleeping, preparing for the United Nations General Assembly. But White House is waking up now. We certainly anticipate that this will be a central piece of the president's remarks. Of course, the central, it was always going to be about the

structure, the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. But now this, expect a firm warning from the White House, from Biden directed towards Putin about the threats of nuclear weapons, about this mobilization. And also, I'm told, and you're right, Mika, that the food crisis, the energy crisis, the cold winter ahead in Europe, it is all connected. But look for the president also to aim some messaging towards other nations, India, China, who, though they have not gone out of their way to help Russia, not in terms of arms or equipment, but also have not forcefully condemned Russia's actions, have still been in business with Russia, buying energy supplies, allowing Putin to fund his war machine. Now, the leaders of India and China not in attendance today at the United Nations. In fact, a number of world leaders didn't make this trip. But certainly the messaging will be heard in those world capitals as a precursor to its delivered in person at the G20 this fall

in Indonesia. All right. We'll be covering this developing news throughout the show. President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, thank you very much for coming on early this morning at the last minute. We want to turn now to the other big story of the morning, yesterday's first hearing before the special master in the case of the documents seized by the FBI during the search of former President Donald Trump's Florida home and club. Judge Raymond Deary, who Trump wanted as the special master, pressed Trump's attorneys to promptly provide more answers about whether the former president did or did not declassify documents marked top secret found at Mar-a-Lago saying, quote,

you can't have your cake and eat it. If they want to argue, the documents might not still be secret. Trump's attorneys have argued that answering that question now would put them at a disadvantage in the face of a possible future criminal prosecution or a future legal fight over getting seized documents returned to Trump. Trump has claimed on social media that he declassified the records he had, but his lawyers have yet to formally make that claim in any sworn court filings. Judge Deary didn't issue any rulings at the hearing, but appeared skeptical about Trump's contention that he had declassified the more than 100 highly sensitive documents

in question found at Mar-a-Lago. Some marked top secret. And while Trump's filing claimed neither side had provided a showing the documents are classified, Judge Deary said the government had presented evidence the documents are because they bear classification markings. This is kind of basic. You could see it right on the files. Judge Deary saying, quote, as far as I'm concerned, that's the end of it. Unless Trump's team has some evidence to the contrary. Trump's lawyer suggested Deary's push to get details on claims about declassification was going beyond Judge Aileen Cannon's order. But Judge Deary disagreed, saying, quote, I'm taken aback by your comment that I'm going beyond what Judge Cannon instructed me to do. I'm thinking I think

I'm doing what I was told to do. Joining us now, senior legal affairs reporter at Politico, Josh Gerstein and former U.S. attorney, senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg. I guess, first of all, Chuck, can we just start with some basics here? Is there anywhere, anywhere in our government documents and basic values, rules, laws, anywhere where a president can just wave a wand and declassify documents himself and take them to his club? Well, it's good to start with basics, Mika. So presidents have declassification authority, but not in this way. And by the way, and you made this point, I think, abundantly clear just a moment ago. If the president, in fact, declassified this or tried to declassify it or declassified some of it, number one, there would be a process. And number

two, there would be evidence that it happened. Federal judges are used to having people answer their questions in court. And the things that work at a political rally or in a playground don't work before a federal judge. So when he asked simply, is there any evidence that this has been declassified? He should have gotten an answer. And when he didn't, it told him everything he needed to know, that it never happened. If it did happen, they would tell him. And so, you know, Mika, I think there's a couple of problems here. First, the Trump folks aren't going to get away with evading answers to logical questions. And two, because there's no evidence that he declassified these documents, the judge is quite right. The evidence that lines up stacks up in favor of the government. As you point out, this stuff is Mark. And by the way,

it's the government, the current government, the administration of President Biden that gets to say what it is and what is not classified. So I think a very poor showing by the Trump lawyers in court, in large part, if not exclusively, because they just don't have the facts to back up what Mr. Trump is saying on social media. So, Josh, if you could break down what happened in court yesterday, because given what Chuck just said, I started with the basics for a reason. How could they not know that? I mean, what are what exactly is their defense to what the judge is now requesting, requiring and asking for, which is basics? Well, Mika, you know, it seemed like the judge called this hearing with the intention of kind of putting the Trump legal team on their heels a little bit and making clear that he was going to drive the timing of this process and that they were going to have to come forward, as you were just discussing with Chuck, with some evidence if they're going to keep pushing this claim about declassification. It seemed to me sitting there in the courtroom with Judge Deary, he was very

soft spoken, but he would offer these kind of almost caustic rebuttals sometimes to things that the Trump lawyers had said. It seemed like as defense lawyers in a case that hasn't yet been filed, right, there's no criminal charges. At this point, they had two options open to defend Trump. One is sort of an ignorance defense that maybe he didn't know exactly what documents were down there at Mar-a-Lago, and therefore he couldn't be responsible for that. And the other is this declassification claim. And which defense they

want to use, I think would depend on what charges the government brings. You know, if it's a charge about classified information, maybe they would try a declassification defense. But if it's just going to be a claim that he caused lies to be told to the U.S. government or obstruction of justice, then he might want to go in a different direction and say, you know, he didn't really know what he had. There's a lot of news clippings and memorabilia, and maybe there was something classified in those boxes. But, you know, he's a busy guy and they just don't want to pick right now which defense they want to use. And they made that abundantly clear in the courtroom yesterday. Yeah. And Jonathan Lemire, I think the judge

seems like he wants to wrap this up. If getting the special master was sort of an attempt to drag things out so they could maybe figure out different strategies. He seems to want to get this going. I believe he even said, want to wrap this up by something like October 6th. Yeah. The hallmark tactic from the Trump legal team has always been delay, delay, delay, delay. We've seen that in every case. And at least so far, it seems like this judge is not having it, suggesting that he would want to operate on a timetable even quicker than the one the Department of Justice proposed. So unless something changes, this may go faster than we perhaps first anticipated. Chuck, I know your assessment is that it was a bad day for the Trump legal team. Feels like we hear that a lot. So what happens now with the special master? Walk us

through the next couple of steps and what, if any, recourse each side has. Right. So Judge Deary has a couple of things he has to do, Jonathan. He has to screen for executive privilege. I imagine there's going to be almost none of that, at least not validly so. He has to screen for executive privilege. I imagine there's going to be almost none of that, at least not validly so. He has to screen for attorney-client privilege. We know there's some of that. The government has already looked through some of these documents and set aside documents it believes might be subject to the attorney-client privilege. He has to make some determinations about classification, the stuff we just discussed. And then there's going to be a large group of documents that don't fit in under any of these categories. So what he has to do, Jonathan, is figure out what

goes to the investigative team and what doesn't. And I imagine one way or the other, the government's going to get what it's entitled to. They would like it sooner rather than later. They would like it yesterday rather than tomorrow. But they're still going to get the stuff to which they're entitled. That means the investigation is going to continue. And to the point that you were just discussing with Mika, it's going to happen relatively quickly. So delay doesn't help the government, but this is not going to be inordinate delay. And the investigation is going to continue, and the government is going to get the stuff to which it's entitled.

Interesting. And Josh, you know, President former President Trump is out making speeches, still claiming his election was stolen. I mean, it's it's incredible the parallel reality happening along with this. A group of Republican state attorneys general is pledging support for Donald Trump in his legal fight over the seized documents. The 11 AGs filed an amicus brief yesterday, blasting the Biden administration for, quote, ransacking the home of its one time and possibly future political rival. Although the brief rattles off a list of unrelated grievances commonly heard on right wing media networks, it ignores the issue of Trump taking sensitive documents with him to his home. In fact, in the 21 page filing, the word classified is not used once. Instead, the AGs argue the court should, quote, view the Biden administration's

assertions of good fate, neutrality and objectivity through jaundiced eyes. Just first of all, the level of disinformation remains equally as high among Trump supporters, whether it's January 6th or these documents. And it's hard for me to understand how that is not interesting as well to the Department of Justice or anybody investigating this former president. Yeah, Mika, these are pretty hard, right? You might call them normally law and order type prosecutors that are filing this brief. And suddenly when they get near President Trump, it seems that the needle on their compass just starts spinning in all sorts of different directions. And we get these unusual results where they're calling basically for the

former president to be treated with kid gloves in the context of this investigation. And what what happens in the appeal that they weighed in on yesterday is pretty important at this point, because that court, the 11th Circuit down in Atlanta, is deciding whether the classified information that was seized or the marked classified information seized from the president's Florida home is going to be part of this special master review or not. So all this discussion that was had with Judge Deary yesterday could potentially be moot, at least on the issue of classified information, if the Justice Department is able to persuade that appeals court that they're entitled to this information that was marked classified and that President Trump, especially President Trump's lawyers, don't

have the right to review it at this time. Senior legal affairs reporter at Politico, Josh Gerstein and former U.S. attorney and senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg. Thank you both very much for being on this morning and still ahead on Morning Joe. The migrants who were flown to Martha's Vineyard take legal action against the man who sent them there. Plus, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell weighs in on moving migrants across the country. We'll play for you his comments. Also ahead, another legal case against the former president could be moving forward in a big way. What we know about an announcement from the New York's attorney general that's set for later this morning.

You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. 25 past the hour, an update now on the powerful weather system in the Caribbean. Hurricane Fiona has strengthened into a category four storm after moving through the Turks and Caicos yesterday. Blamed for at least four deaths so far in the Caribbean. Fiona has hit Puerto Rico the hardest, leaving 80 percent of the island still without power this morning. Water service was cut to more than 760,000 people. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has deployed teams to help with the recovery. We'll be praying for Puerto Rico as well. Now to a look at the morning papers. The Star Tribune reports that federal prosecutors have unveiled stunning indictments against dozens of Minnesotans in what officials are calling the largest pandemic fraud in the United States. According to court documents, more than 40 people face federal charges accused of defrauding a federal child nutrition program of more than

$250 million. The defendants are accused of using the money to fund international travel, buy luxury cars and purchase homes along the coasts of Kenya and Turkey. The Idaho Statesman highlights a nonprofit made up of volunteer pilots who fly people in need of an abortion or gender affirming care at no cost. The Illinois based organization named Elevated Access has over 800 pilots who want to volunteer. The group says it has received thousands of phone calls from people in need. In Texas, the Dallas Morning News reports that a influential group of medical experts for the first time is recommending that all adults under 65 years old get screened for anxiety. Anxiety disorders are among the most common mental health complaints affecting

about 40 percent of women at some point in their lives and more than one in four men. The Times highlights Louisiana's mass exodus of workers. New figures show that 70,000 workers around 70,000 in the state quit their jobs in July. It is the first time in more than a decade Louisiana has had that many workers quit in consecutive months. The paper notes that the state has already seen more workers quit their jobs, though the first seven months of this year through the first seven months of this year than in the entirety of the 2012 and 2013. The Democrat and Chronicle reports that New York schools are no longer required to report daily COVID-19 test results among students and teachers to state officials. The daily tests were once posted on a now deactivated Web site.

State health officials cite access to vaccines and treatments as the primary reason for easing pandemic precautions. Also, you need to get a booster. Coming up, a look at the personal cost of voting in America. Plus, Herschel Walker tells Georgia voters he's, quote, not that smart, but he'll do his best in the debate. We'll show you how the Republican Senate candidate is downplaying an upcoming debate against Democrat Senator Raphael Warnock. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Governor of Florida helped a tiny number of illegal immigrants, about four dozen, secure transportation to the wealthy liberal destination of Martha's Vineyard, filled with millionaires' mansions, which appointed itself a so-called sanctuary destination back in 2017.

There is a sheriff in Texas who is demanding a criminal investigation of Governor DeSantis of Florida on the grounds that he misled and mistreated those migrants that he flew up to Cape Cod. What do you make of that? I think it's really silly. I saw that headline. And, you know, look, we have elected sheriffs in Texas. And so sometimes you see someone who wants to make a newspaper headline. But but let's be clear, there's there's nothing. A common talking point seems to be emerging from top Republicans. Meanwhile, the migrants who were flown from Texas to Martha's Vineyard have filed a class action lawsuit against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis,

alleging they were victims of fraud. A Chicago-based migrant organization and three of the people who landed on the Massachusetts island accused DeSantis and his co-defendants of a, quote, premeditated, fraudulent and illegal scheme for the sole purpose of advancing their own personal, financial and political interests. They are seeking damages and have asked the court to block the governor from, quote, inducing immigrants to travel across state lines by fraud and misrepresentation. That comes as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis deliberately sowed confusion across three states yesterday about a migrant flight, keeping the White House and Delaware officials guessing the entire day. The chaos started after reports emerged that a plane carrying migrants was headed to Delaware, President Joe Biden's home state. Delaware's governor mobilized resources

and community groups to receive the flight. However, it never showed up. The plane instead landed in New Jersey, just outside of New York City, where Biden was visiting for the ongoing United Nations General Assembly, but with no migrants on board. A source close to DeSantis told NBC News it was an intentional move by the governor to keep the migrants issue alive, adding, quote, he didn't tell anyone and purposefully left people in the dark. So technically, the media, the Democrats, everyone got punked. He's pretty funny, isn't he? Joining us now, member of The New York Times editorial board, Mara Gay. Mara, you know, it's very hard to not become incensed about this. But again, that's another thing that Ron DeSantis wants. At the same time, it is true.

There is a crisis at the border. It is true. Both parties could do more. It is true. Much more can be done and should be done with the very realistic crisis at the border. But this, of course, is taking human lives, a group of human lives, people, human beings, and making them feel agony, fear, terror, and misguiding them and transporting them. It's hard to have a conversation with someone who thinks that's funny or that's OK. So how to have a conversation about this? Will this work for these Republican governors who think, wow, this is a great way to get headlines and own the libs? Well, you said it, Mika. That's what this is about. It's about owning the libs. I mean,

there's two separate issues, as you pointed out. There is a border crisis. It's real. I think actually the best response for the adults in the room is to kind of walk and chew gum at the same time, which is to say, address that crisis, both on a humanitarian level and just from the perspective of this is a nation of laws. We do have a border. It's important to enforce that. It's important to understand the communities living on that border and what they're dealing with. That's all fine. There should be a process with which the country can move forward. It's very politically fraught. I understand that. But that is something that the Democrats and Republicans should be working on together. And at least the Democrats can move forward. It's very politically fraught. I understand that. But that is something that the Democrats and Republicans should be working on together.

And at least the Democrats can come up with a plan of their own. It's been some time since we've seen that. But then separately, I mean, this is all a stunt. We know that this is a stunt. It's cruel. It's unusual. And it really has become symbolic of the larger just meanness within the Republican Party. It's just extraordinary. But of course, it's backfired in the sense that, of course, we've seen Americans in places where migrants have been shipped to who have rallied to support these individuals who have overcome great odds to come here and, by the way, are here legally. The problem is that we have these echo chambers. And so actually, it's not clear that DeSantis is going to care about what's actually happening on the ground because his hardcore supporters are watching Fox News. They're not really looking at

how people are responding with kindness, with compassion and charitably. So this is really just a political stunt and it's cruel and unusual. So Mara, let's obviously say again, this is a stunt. These are human beings in the middle of all this. Having said that, let's talk about the politics of it. And you just started to go there a little bit. I mean, I think certainly we had some polling morning consult political poll or this morning suggested the Democrats, of course, oppose what they've seen here. And a lot of independents do as well. Republicans largely approve. And this is Ron DeSantis in what is a you're right. It's owning the libs. It's about being mean. It's a base play. This is someone who's looking at 2024. And we have now heard reporting that Donald Trump is envious of this stunt because he claims that

he thought of it and DeSantis stole the idea. So I guess that should should frame how we think about this argument on the Republican Party. Isn't it possible that for Ron DeSantis, this is a great political play if he's looking to be their nominee? It is a great political play for him. I mean, what a sad fact. I think that the politics of the Republican Party is just play to the base as long and as hard as you can. And that's what this is. I don't know how he's going to pivot from that to, it makes me think 20 years ago, compassionate conservatism of George Bush. I mean, we're living in a completely

different universe, obviously. But at the end of the day, he doesn't care about the migrants. He doesn't care about a solution at the border. And I really doubt that he cares about people who are living at the border, who are American citizens, who are have reasonable concerns about this. What he cares about is his own standing with the base and, of course, trying to out Trump or out Fox Trump. I don't know. What are we doing? We're bringing up compassionate conservatism because this is not conservative. That's what also I don't get Mitch McConnell praising this. I don't get Republican leaders praising this.

How is using Florida taxpayer dollars to transport migrants, sadism aside, out of another state, Texas, that doesn't even deal with your state to another state. How is that in the benefit of the Florida taxpayer? All those millions of dollars. That is not conservatism. That's just waste corruption because it's money going to fuel your own political ambitions. I this story just really gets me because it's just so damn wasteful. And on top of being sick and just sick and twisted, it's the kind of, you know, sadistic, the frat boy that knows the hazing is going on and just won't do anything. And he's standing in the other room, but he planned it all. It's gross. So, I mean, Mara, this is we've seen Sanders before take a position to the right of Trump in terms of the pandemic response. He's he's doing that again. He's doing it again.

You know, one small silver lining here is that some of the migrants may actually end up getting better services outside of Texas and Florida than they would have gotten before. And so that for me, I'm kind of trying to hold on to the idea that these actual human beings are arriving, it seems, in places where they are getting some more support than they would have gotten, which is surely better than somebody coming up to you, potentially committing fraud and human trafficking, you know, with false promises. Right. But by the grace of God, people are there on the ground who are actually practicing principles of compassion and grace because this sick guy sure didn't care about him. Exactly. So, Elise, you're right. It's sick. And I mean,

for other Republicans who may have some opinions on this that they don't feel like sharing, you might want to share. You're human beings, too, you know, although it's getting hard to believe. I know some of you have a hard time getting over Donald Trump. So maybe you can't get over Donald Trump. Maybe you're too scared to step out of line with Donald Trump. But do you really want to be in the party of inhumanity, the party that is literally becoming inhumane. You're going to be the party that forces a child to bear a child of its rapist. That's number one. That's your party. You're going to be the party that thinks owning weapons of war should be free

and easy for everybody in an age where our children are getting slaughtered on a regular basis. That's your party. And now you're in the party that thinks it's funny, thinks it's funny to mislead fathers, mothers and babies who have fled the oppression in their country, who have walked through many countries to get here to America to seek asylum. Yes. At the border where there is, yes, a crisis. And you think it's funny to mislead them and load them up onto a plane, tell them they're going to a better place, and then put them in a place where they are sure to miss their asylum hearing so that they are forced to break a law so that they end up either deported or in jail. You're hilarious. You're so funny. You're so cool. That must be cool to be so unbelievably sick and cold hearted. That is the Republican Party today.

It's the party of inhumanity. And I'm not even exaggerating. You look at those three issues. That's where you stand. So good luck defending that in future elections. We'll continue this conversation on migrants and the issues at the border in our next hour with former Secretary of Homeland Security Jay Johnson. And next on Morning Joe, we'll hear from Gen Z Republicans in the battleground state of Pennsylvania, how they're feeling about the key issues and the former president ahead of the midterms. We'll be right back. 49 past the hour live look at Philadelphia for you this morning. We are following a special series on the Gen Z vote.

And Morning Joe reporter Daniela Pierre Bravo reports from the battleground state of Pennsylvania. With the midterms right around the corner, we came to Philadelphia and talked to Gen Z Republicans to ask them what issues are important to them. These midterms are super important because there's a lot of things on the ballot this year that have not always been. I know that abortion is a huge issue. And I think the most important thing that has come out of this overturning is that this election matters. Would you consider yourself pro-choice or pro-life? I don't want to label myself as either. As a woman, you make these decisions

that are super hard and you don't necessarily know what your life has in store later on. I support the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade because I think it brings the power back to the people as it should have been. But as a woman, I do firmly believe in people having autonomy over their bodies. I think protecting right to contraception is important. So it seems like it's not black and white for you. No, definitely not. A large part of your party feels represented by former President Donald Trump. Yeah, absolutely. Do you feel aligned to his views? And if he was on the ballot in the general, would that be your top pick?

I think I would have to see who the option on the Democratic side would be. What about if Donald Trump was part of the general? Would you— I would not be voting for him, no. You would not be voting for Donald Trump? No. No. I think his rhetoric is too divisive. I don't agree with everything that he says, but I feel like some things that he says are kind of true. But I wouldn't consider myself like Trump, like, you know, full on, like, you know, supporter. So you voted for Donald Trump in 2020. Do you think, like, were you happy with his leadership? Would you vote for him again?

Yes, 100%. But you thought he was an effective leader? He was definitely an effective leader in comparison to previous leaders we have. I see Trump as kind of a little too authoritative for my taste. I wish for kind of a return to kind of what I see as traditional conservatism. I care more about issues and kind of end results over a specific candidate or party. So first, I would look across the aisle to see

what's there. I definitely prefer DeSantis. Why do you identify as Republican? I mean, I identify as Republican because my family was mostly Republican. And I do agree to some things that, you know, Republicans say. I don't know, I'm kind of in the middle. I am a Republican, but I feel like you can sway towards other parties sometimes as well. I would say I'm a moderate Republican, but there are certain issues where I lean more towards the left, other issues where I lean more towards the right. Where do you lean a little bit to the left? Roe vs. Wade, abortion issues, pro-choiceice as well as gun control gun safety I was happy to see some of the gun control measures that were passed this past summer and I think there's a way to protect the Second Amendment

while also ensuring that communities are safe definitely the woke movement is something that I'm extremely concerned about especially within the next five ten years where I will eventually be having children, especially someone who lives in a liberal city, kind of like this ensues people like me who is conservative to want to live in this type of environment. All right, let's bring in the director of polling at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University, John De La Volpe. He's an MSNBC political contributor and author of the book Fight, how Gen Z is channeling their fear and passion to save America. And I thought the piece by Daniela was fascinating. And I think let me

let me ask if you agree that the herein lies the rub that we had some really she had some really thoughtful conversations with bright young people. Will they vote? Yes, I think Daniela did a terrific job really uncovering the values of this generation. Mika, we spent so much time talking about young people as a progressive generation. 70 percent voted Democrat in midterms at 18. 60 percent voted for Joe Biden. But as the piece pointed out, it's not a monolith. A quarter of this generation is Republican, a quarter is conservative, and they are as likely to vote today as they were actually more so than they were back in 2018. So fewer young Republicans and young Democrats, but both sides, I think, of the political spectrum

are very, very engaged and likely to vote this coming November. So, you know, we recently spoke to former chief speechwriter for President Obama, Jon Favreau, and he shared with us a clip from his podcast, which really folds beautifully into this conversation. He spoke with a group of young voters in Southern California. Listen. How many of you plan on voting in the midterm elections this November? What is that? Three here for I could. I filled out a ballot like a couple of weeks ago. Was that for the November election? I don't even know.

I believe there was a primary. So there was a primary election. Okay. I'll just do what I did again. Do that again. Who is your member of Congress, and do you think they're doing a good job? I don't know anyone in Congress. Okay. That's totally fine. Does anyone know who their member of Congress is? I stopped. No. I don't know anyone in Congress.

Does anyone know who their member of Congress is? Scott. No. Okay. This made me cry. It's just like, you know, John, it seems to me that the challenge is still to figure out how to engage young people civically, even on a local level, to have them understand the basic framework of our political system. I mean, these were bright young people, just like the folks that Daniela spoke with. Yeah, that's right, Mika.

You know, this generation has been the most active that we've seen, but still, by definition, most active in a midterm election. Less than 40 percent will vote. That's twice the number that my generation and your generation and generation older than us participated, but still clearly kind of not enough. What we're hearing, though, I think, is a real kind of struggle between the values of younger people and how they comport with the Republican politics of today. There's a very different set of values than people might believe. For example, among the most important issues in the minds of young people, we heard are abortion and

reproductive health, one. We also heard concern about school shootings. We also heard concern about the economy inflation. But one of the significant differences between younger Republicans and younger Democrats is that this idea of wokeism specifically concerns about religious freedom. Democrats and Republicans are concerned about losing their rights, but specifically younger Republicans are concerned about religious freedom. And I think what we need to do is we care so much, I think, about civic engagement, and we spend so much time talking about the more progressive elements of this generation. But it's important that we understand and we listen and respect where younger Republicans are coming from as well. John, Mara Gay here. This is fascinating. I'm wondering, did you get any

sense about where these young people were getting their information from? I think their parents, if those are Republican parents, may be watching cable news, Fox News, but you don't usually see that among young people, even young Republicans. So where are they getting their information from? Is there a Republican young group on TikTok? What are you hearing and seeing? One of the, I think the more interesting things, Myra, is when we ask them how their values and their politics have been shaped, all young people, young Republicans are much more likely to be influenced by their parents, by their parents' beliefs. And we heard that in Daniela's piece, whereas young Democrats are more likely to be influenced by their friends. So that's kind of

one significant difference. But you're right, there is conservatives and Republicans both on TikTok, throughout social media, and clearly a lot of the messaging from Fox News is also being heard by and repeated among these tight in these tight Republican circles. All right. Director of polling at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University, John De La Volpe. Thank you very much. Fascinating. And member of The New York Times editorial board, Mara Gay. Thank you as well. And coming up, we'll speak with member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democrat Chris Murphy, ahead of the president's address before the U.N. General Assembly this morning.

Plus, reaction to Vladimir Putin's remarks overnight, ordering up reservists and threatening to use, quote, all instruments at his disposal. And later, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre will be our guest. We're back in just two minutes.