Morning Joe - Morning Joe 9/22/22

Episode Date: September 22, 2022

New York AG sues Trump, 3 of his children and their company, charging large-scale business fraud

It has been a bad day for Donald Trump. Donald Trump began his day by getting hit with the most massive lawsuit he has ever faced, a lawsuit that could wipe him out and bankrupt his adult children. Donald Trump falsely inflated his net worth by billions of dollars to unjustly enrich himself and to cheat the system. And while it is not a criminal case, New York officials are turning some of their findings over to federal prosecutors regarding possible criminal acts they uncovered. In another blow tonight, there is breaking news on the investigation into

the classified documents that Trump stashed at his retirement home at Mar-a-Lago. A federal appeals court just before we went to air just ruled in favor of the Justice Department. The Justice Department can have access to roughly 100 highly sensitive classified documents that were taken from Mar-a-Lago. Immediately, we saw the appeals court issue this ruling. I was a little stunned to see it come out so quickly. I think it's worth taking a step back

and recognizing just how extraordinary this moment, this day is. It was almost easy to forget that Trump had never actually been indicted, never been sued, you know, by a state entity or anything like that. But today things look different. And that is where we pick things up this morning. On top of those legal setbacks for Donald Trump comes news from the January 6th committee that the wife of Supreme Court Justice conservative activist Ginny Thomas has agreed to meet with the committee about her efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, September 22nd. I'm Willie Geist. Joe and Mika under the weather this morning. Jonathan Lemire is with me at the table. He's, of course, the host of Way Too Early, also White House Bureau chief at Politico. Let's dive right in with the sweeping lawsuit from the state of New York against Donald Trump, his eldest three children and the Trump organization alleging years of fraud.

The state is seeking $250 million in damages and wants to bar the family from serving as officers of New York based companies. The lawsuit of more than 200 pages goes into detail, outlining how Trump allegedly overvalued his assets by billions of dollars to get more favorable loans. Here's some of the examples. According to the lawsuit, Trump inflated the square footage of his apartment in Trump Tower, claiming it was about 30,000 square feet when it was really less than 11,000. Still big, by the way. As a result, the triplex was valued at $327 million for an apartment.

The lawsuit called that price, quote, absurd, claiming the highest selling apartment in New York at the time was $100 million in a newly built tower, while the highest selling apartment in 30-year-old Trump Tower at the time was $16.5 million. The suit claims Trump also overvalued Mar-a-Lago by millions of dollars based on the false premise it could be developed and sold for residential use when he had agreed not to do that. Trump claimed the Florida Beach Club was worth $739 million, but according to the lawsuit, it should have been closer to $75 million. At his residential Park Avenue building, the lawsuit claims Trump valued units at nearly $50 million when they should have been $750,000. You get the idea here. Trump, his children and the organization are accused of using more than 200 false and misleading asset valuations over a 10 year period. New York State Attorney General

Letitia James says she has referred the violations now to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and to the IRS. Pattern of fraud and deception that was used by Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization for their own financial benefit is astounding. Claiming you have money that you do not have does not amount to the art of the deal. It's the art of the steal. And there cannot be different rules for different people in this country or in this state.

And former presidents are no different. No one is above the law. Everyday people cannot lie to a bank about how much money they have in order to get a favorable loan to buy a home or to send their kid to college. And if they did, the government would throw the book at them. Why should this be any different? It is a tale of two justice systems, one for everyday working people and one for the elite, the rich and the powerful. Following that news conference, Donald Trump railed against Attorney General James in release statements and on social media, once again calling her racist and claiming the case is a witch hunt. Let's bring in New York Times investigative reporter Suzanne Craig.

She has reported extensively on the finances and taxes of Donald Trump and won a Pulitzer Prize for that work. Also with us, MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalos and NBC News legal analyst Andrew Weissman. He's the former general counsel for the FBI. Good morning to you all. Suzanne, I want to start with you just as a big picture look at what we're talking about here. There's so much going on around Donald Trump, around the elections, around his finances. It's hard to keep track. So what exactly are we talking about here in this lawsuit from the New York state attorney general? Right. Well, this is it's important to note that this is a civil lawsuit. It's not criminal.

So if it if it ends up in a court, he faces civil fines. And then there'll be other remedies that she's going to be asking for. She wants to limit their ability to do business in New York. She wants to limit their lending, limit their ability to build in New York for a certain amount of period. So those are the remedies. So it's not criminal. They do have a criminal case, the Trump Organization, coming up in October. But this is civil. But this isn't just Donald Trump submitting documents so that he could get more favorable terms with lenders.

They also were looking at incidences where he overvalued property in order to get favorable or large appraisals that would give him larger tax deductions. And we're looking at that on land gifts that he gave where he has basically land he feels he can no longer use. And so he donates it to a land conservancy. He can never use the land again. And as a result of that, you get a charitable donation. And in this case, there was land that was worth whatever it was, $5 million, he would get an appraisal. They say that he influenced the appraisal, he misled appraisers to get a $10 million valuation. So that would just give him a larger tax deduction. And that sort of stuff has been referred to the IRS for review. But there's a lot

going on in terms, it's not just he submitted potentially false documents to banks to get more favorable terms. There's a lot in there. This is more than 200 pages. Yeah, I read it for five hours last night and still didn't hit the end of it. Yeah, no, it's very complicated. And Andrew, in terms of penalties, Attorney General James is talking about a $250 million fine to bar Donald Trump permanently from sitting on the board of any New York-based company and to prevent him from doing real estate business effectively in the state of New York for five years. So you've gone through this document as well.

How strong is the case against Donald Trump, his kids and the Trump organization? So they did something very smart here, which is they really tried to focus on things that are not subjective. You know, appraisals are notoriously loose and financial statements can have disclaimers that they're not audited. But as you noted, the things that the New York attorney general focused on are things that are objectively false. So, I think that was just very smart. And also, the number of things that were repeatedly false makes it, I think, a very hard case. And also, remember, because this is a civil case, the standard of proof is just a preponderance, which is just slightly more than than likely

or than 50 percent. And the fact that a number of defendants, including Donald Trump, have asserted the Fifth Amendment may be used against them in the proceeding so that it can carry an adverse inference in a civil case. It couldn't in a criminal case. So it looks very strong. And it's also worth noting, this is not the only trouble that the Trump Organization has because they are facing a criminal trial in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office starting in less than a month. So the Trump organization itself is really got a world of pain right now. So, Danny, those of us who have lived or worked in New York City will perhaps

not be surprised that Donald Trump overinflated the value of his properties. But there's some real consequences here. I know what struck out to you with that criminal referral. Tell us about that. Yes, because it's not historically significant that Trump and his family are being sued. Everybody knows that. It's not even that historically significant that they're being sued by the New York attorney general. But what is significant is the potential referral to the IRS and to the Justice Department. It is essentially phrased as a dare for them to look at this package that Letitia James has created for them with all the receipts. As Andrew pointed out, there are documents. Yes, valuation of property can be

subjective. And by the way, that will be the Trump defense here, that these were properties. Valuation is something that is hazy at best. Consider, for example, just putting the name Trump on a building. How does that change the valuation? But they're going to run into a wall when they're confronted with hard facts, square footage. You can't make 11,000 square feet into 30,000 square feet by simply saying that valuation is subjective. So the government, the federal government, is going to take a look at it. I'm almost certain. Whether they will bring criminal charges is another thing entirely, because everyone is very aware of the fact that the preponderance of evidence standard in civil court is much, much lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. And federal prosecutors have an obligation not just to get enough evidence to

secure an indictment. That's basically probable cause. But they must believe they can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. So that different standard here will be key. But it is cause for concern for everybody on the Trump side. Suzanne, you've studied Donald Trump's finances, the finances of the Trump work for so long. You understand that there has been fraud over the years, these inflated properties. We've all lived in New York for a long time, as John said, and watched it. But is this something different here? Is this unique? How does this fit into the bigger picture of how Donald Trump always has done business?

Yeah, you know, we looked in our reporting, especially in 2018, when we stumbled on this and we saw, you know, for and I mentioned the charitable for charitable donations where they can get a tax advantage, they go high. And then they, we, they had another example where they had property that was, you know, being valued for an estate and they would go low. We learned in that, that, that, you know, there's a bit of a code with appraisers. When you, when you say you're doing a charitable donation and you'd like an appraisal you don't need to say go high the appraiser sort of knows but there's a there's a you know just a an allowable sort of you know let's bump it up a bit there's not let's bump it up a thousand percent it's 20 or

30 percent and so that's I think he, from what Letitia James, the Attorney General, has laid out, he's gone well beyond what would be considered, okay, here's a little bit that you can have. And the other thing I think his defense will be, because it's common, you hear it a lot, that these appraisals, that people inflate them, you know, just because everybody doesn't make it legal. I mean, that sounds like a confession to me. So I think he's going to be in trouble even if he says this is standard practice in New York and this happens. What he has done is just, you know, it's so far beyond what we have seen and what we've talked to experts about in terms of what's allowed and what the IRS, you know, sort of lets go. And you've seen it all.

So if you're saying it goes far beyond, it really is. New York Times investigative reporter. Some of the numbers were like 1,000 plus percent where they were doing that. And they also seem to be putting their thumb on the scale where you get into intent. There was one property I looked at just while I was reading through it that really caught my eye, and it's Seven Springs. It's that sprawling estate that he owns in Westchester. It's on the opening of the Apprentice

credits for anybody who's watched those. And they bought it in 1995. And then they tried, just they failed, tried and failed multiple times to put homes on it. And then they finally did an easement, the charitable easement, so that they could get a tax deduction. And the Attorney General's case shows that they didn't reveal a lot of the details about how they had tried and failed. They had misled, basically, the appraiser, and they got a better appraisal because of it. And that's her allegation. They've laid it out in some documents in pretty strong language that this is what happened between the Trump organization and the appraiser.

Yeah, there's a long pattern of this, as you say. New York Times investigative reporter who understands this stuff better than anybody, Suzanne Craig. Suzanne, thanks so much. We appreciate you being here today. The Federal Appeals Court says the Justice Department now can resume using the classified documents seized from former President Donald Trump's Florida estate in its criminal investigation. The DOJ had appealed a ruling from earlier this month by Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Eileen Cannon. She had temporarily barred the department from reviewing and using the seized materials for investigative purposes. The ruling late yesterday came from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit comprised of two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee. The panel thoroughly rejected Trump's position on the classified documents and parts of Judge Cannon's reasoning for issuing her original order, specifically that her order would not get in the way of the office

of the Director of National Intelligence Risk Assessment. The appeals court noted Trump had presented no evidence. He had declassified the sensitive records and rejected the possibility that Trump could have had a, quote, individual interest in or need for the roughly 100 documents with classification markings that were seized by the FBI in its August 8 search of the Palm Beach property. The decision now clears the way for the Justice Department investigators to continue scrutinizing those documents as they consider whether to bring criminal charges over the storage of top secret records at Mar-a-Lago after Trump left the White House. Andrew Weissman, I think I've heard you say and most other legal analysts say this ended up probably in the right place with a little slowdown from Judge Cannon there. What do you make of that ruling yesterday?

If you step back and think about what happened here, Donald Trump, by bringing this lawsuit, is worse off than he was before he brought this lawsuit. So two things happened. When he brought this lawsuit, it allowed the Department of Justice to lay out the specifics of why Donald Trump had stolen documents, why he had lied about them, why they engaged in a search warrant, because they weren't getting the documents through a voluntary process or even a grand jury subpoena, which is not a request. It is a legal demand. So that was misstep number one. And now in one day, you have the 11th Circuit with the majority of the panel being appointed by judges, appointed by Donald Trump, ruling in every single way, as you said, a thorough opinion. And they go through chapter and verse against Judge Cannon and finding that Donald Trump,

among other things, had no possessory interest in these documents. They're not his. So that is just another really bad development. It is a good development for the rule of law. The opinion is absolutely bulletproof in reversing Judge Cannon. And now the intelligence community continue to look through those classified documents. Wait till you hear President Trump, former President Trump's latest explanation for how he declassified those documents, he says. He appeared last night on Sean Hannity's Fox News program from Mar-a-Lago. In the interview, Trump said presidents can declassify documents just by, quote, thinking about it. You had said on Truth Social a number of times you did declassify. I did declassify, yes. OK. Is there a process? What was your process to declassify?

There doesn't have to be a process, as I understand it. You know, there's different people say different things. But as I understand, there doesn't have to be. If you're the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying it's declassified, even by thinking about it, because you're sending it to Mar-a-Lago or to wherever you're sending it. And there doesn't have to be a process. There can be a process, but there doesn't have to be. You're the president. You make that decision.

So when you send it, it's declassified. I declassified everything. Then there's this line of reasoning from Trump, which seemed to surprise even Sean Hannity. There's also a lot of speculation because of what they did, the severity of the FBI coming and raiding Mar-a-Lago. Were they looking for the Hillary Clinton emails that were deleted, but they are around someplace?

Were they looking for the spy? You don't say you had it. No, no. They may be saying they may have thought that it was in there. OK. And a lot of people said the only thing that would give the kind of severity that they showed by actually coming in and raiding with many, many people is the Hillary Clinton deal, the Russia, Russia, Russia stuff. Or I mean, there are there are a number of things, the spying on Trump's campaign. So they spy to my campaign.

John, help me out here. Yeah, I've still got a little jet lag from London, so my processor isn't working maybe as fast as it should. Yeah. What's he talking about there? I have no idea. Yeah. Donald Trump, let's remember, had a whole campaign based on trying to find Hillary Clinton's, quote, missing emails. We recall he even asked for Russia's help. So it is a remarkable plot twist, Danny Savalas, that apparently the FBI thinks they might have been at Mar-a-Lago. Now, we know that's not true, but is there anything he just said right here in terms of that nonsense or his claim that he could declassify things just by thinking about it? Is any of this true? Can I hold up? Jonathan, just give me a minute. I am currently declassifying documents. Yes, I'm thinking about there is it's pretty surprising that Trump would say that

declassification powers extend this far. But more significant is I can't help but go back to the point Andrew Weissman made, which is how has this declassification theory even helped Donald Trump? His attorneys won't go so far as to say it in a court filing. And by the way, I sympathize with those attorneys. They are in a position, many is the time that I've been put in a position by a client where I have to use some word salad to get around what the client wants to say in court, but that I would never say in court. And I really sympathize with these lawyers because they've said essentially, well, the president has the power to declassify documents, but they won't go so far as to say that he did, in fact, do so, because if they did, they would be putting their

attorney stamp on statements like Trump just made with Hannity, which is that he was sitting in the White House, de-thinking-ifying all of these documents. I don't know how you would do that. Andrew, I mean, this is where you end up, though, isn't it? When there is no explanation for having classified documents removed from the White House and taken to your beach club, you effectively say, I used the force to declassify them. Yeah. So, you know, on a serious note, because, you know, this is just not a mature discussion of a defense. I mean, what he's really just saying is I'm above the law.

I mean, this is just not serious. But the 11th Circuit, the Court of Appeals decision yesterday actually cuts this argument out from under Donald Trump because they first point out that this is something that Donald Trump is unwilling to say in court in spite of repeated opportunities, including just noting that the day before, before Judge Deary in Brooklyn, Judge Deary asked that exact question and the Trump team refused to answer. But the other thing that the Court of Appeals said is, and this is now a Court of Appeals decision with two Trump judges, said it's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with a legal defense here. So it is really a question of Donald Trump is just engaging in distractions. It is not a legally relevant thing, even if you could somehow declassify things by merely thinking about them. So the Court of Appeals now has a complete decision saying that this is just a bogus line of defense and we shouldn't be distracted by it. And you're so right, Andrew. It does remind you of the protests of the 2020 election where

Donald Trump and others would go on TV and be at rallies and say these wild things and make these claims. And then when the rubber met the road in a courtroom, they backed away from it. Rudy Giuliani being the clearest example of that. Andrew Weissman, Danny Savalos, thanks both for walking us through all this this morning. We appreciate it. Still ahead on Morning Joe, President Biden rebukes Russia during his speech at the U.N. General Assembly. We'll talk through his warnings about Moscow's efforts to erase Ukraine from the map. And Biden's comments come as hundreds of protesters have been arrested in Russia after Putin called for mobilizing more troops. We'll talk about the significance of the growing unrest there

when Richard Haass and Andrea Mitchell joined the table here in New York. Also this morning, Officer Eugene Goodman offers new details about what he experienced on January 6th while defending the United States Capitol from that mob. Plus, Ginny Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, now agreeing to meet with House Select Committee investigating January 6th. We'll go over why her testimony may be important to that panel's probe. You're watching Morning Joe on a busy Thursday morning. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. I mean, come on. Aaron Judge gets up one more time in the ninth inning because of a long inning with a chance to tie the all-time American League home run record and the Pirates walk him. Not

intentionally, but for all intents and purposes, it was intentional. Yeah, but what this sets up now is as he sits there at 60, one away from tying Marist, two away from passing him and having a record, the Yankees now have four games at home against the Boston Red Sox. He's going to hit about eight home runs this weekend.

He's gone after bonds by the time he's done. There was a little part of me last night that wasn't so mad about that walk because now you do it against the socks at home the place is going to be buzzing let's bring you to the conversation on this the president of the council on foreign relations richard haas and nbc news chief foreign affairs correspondent the host of andrea mitchell reports our good friend andrea mitchell i swear we're going to talk about the un in a second let's talk this home run chase you were just talking about 61 and Roger Maris. You know, I was a kid then and I loved Mickey Mantle.

I just wanted Mantle to do it and not Maris, you know. And well, those are the years the Yankees were king. And, you know, we hated the Dodgers because the Dodgers and the Giants had abandoned us for the West Coast. And you weren't alone in rooting for Mickey Mantle. A lot of people, right? You too, Richard? Mickey Mantle, Whitey Ford. Those are the days.

Elton Howard, Yogi Berra. Those are the classic years. And the Yankees represented all that was right about the country. Yeah, you hear that, Jonathan? I'm going to rebut that pretty strongly. America's team. America's team. Yeah, we're not.

Yeah, I'm floundering here. 2004, Richard. 2004. There you go. I don't have much. I don't have much. No, but it is, you know, it is. We'll just say this about Darren Judge.

What a spectacular season. Because not just the home run record. Currently, he's the American League triple crown. He leads an average in RBIs as well. Two for four last night. Yeah. I mean, it's remarkable to watch. Yeah.

Two for four is a bad night because he didn't get a home run. Yeah, I know. I know. Left disappointed because he didn't get a home run. I know. I never left disappointed because he didn't get a home run. So we'll keep that watch on. But as John said, Yankees-Sox four-game set starts tonight. So he's got four chances to tie and then break the record. He will do it emphatically. I'll send you the clip.

I think he should have to narrate it on the show. Oh, yeah. That's important. Tomorrow morning. Hey, I'm taking tomorrow off. Just letting you guys know right now. Just a preventative day off. Smart man. Okay, let's important. Tomorrow morning. Hey, I'm taking tomorrow off. Just let you guys know right now. It's just a preventative day off. Smart man. OK, let's get down to business.

President Biden condemned Russia yesterday during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly. Speaking to nearly 200 world leaders, Biden framed Europe's war as part of what he says is a larger fight to protect democracy across the world. Russia has shamelessly violated the core tenets of the United Nations Charter. No more important than the clear prohibition against countries taking the territory of their neighbor by force. The United States is determined to defend and strengthen democracy at home and around the world because I believe democracy remains humanity's greatest instrument to address the challenges of our time. If nations can pursue their imperial ambitions without consequences, then we put at risk everything this very institution stands for everything. Let me also urge every nation to recommit to strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime through diplomacy. No matter what else is happening in the world,

the United States is ready to pursue critical armed control measures. A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Andrea, that speech comes at such a fascinating time in this war when you have some cracks even among allies of Vladimir Putin. President Xi not really offering his support. President Modi being openly critical of Vladimir Putin. How was that received in the room yesterday? It was received well in the room. I thought it was one of Joe Biden's better speeches,

in fact, and he had worked really hard on it. The flight over to London, the fact back from London, you know, going to the funeral in between and cared a great deal about this. They added a couple of lines because of Putin's speech. They believe that Putin is bluffing on the nuclear weapons, but are concerned about what he will do if he's cornered, if he's backed into a corner. And that's why trying to keep that balance with Zelensky, that the recent advances by Ukraine in the Northeast have given them a lot of momentum and a lot of hope.

And the extraordinary achievements of the Ukrainians, the heart and soul of Ukrainians against these hideous war crimes, unspeakable war crimes. So they're working really hard to make sure that he does not cross a red line, which would be to go with these long-range artillery that he's now gotten, which have helped him succeed in this counteroffensive, that he doesn't go across that line into Mother Russia. And the concern is that Russia, by going ahead with these fake annexations

and fake referenda, is going to try to redefine what the Russian boundaries are to Russian-held territories like Luhansk and Crimea, which they've had since 2014. And that would be, you know, bringing NATO. And that's what Joe Biden has been so determined to do. Don't make this the U.S. and NATO versus Russia, because that is something that, as he said, a nuclear war cannot be fought and can never be won. That speech a couple of days ago, Richard, from Putin did have the air of desperation going all the way to threatening nuclear war.

How is the international community receiving that threat? How seriously are they taking it? Look, people are disconcerted by the whole idea that the person who possesses the world's largest nuclear arsenal would be making these kinds of threats is unnerving. That said, I thought the president got it about right yesterday. We this is about world order. It's about imperial ambitions cannot be allowed to be met. There's not a lot of rules in this world, Willie. The only basic rule is you can't acquire territory by force.

The corollary here is we can't reward anybody for threatening, much less using nuclear weapons. If Putin is able to succeed with that, think of the lesson that teaches China, North Korea, Iran, anyone else. It basically says nuclear weapons are a valuable strategy. For 75 years, they haven't been used. We cannot allow that to happen. So we basically have to take it as a bluff. And we've got to think really hard, what will it take to make sure that Vladimir Putin is deterred from going down that path. But I think essentially, the United States and NATO have to be resolved and just ignore the fact of Putin's bluster. Don't accept, as Andrew said, these sham annexations. Essentially, Ukraine is going to go on militarily. Hopefully, they'll take back these places.

Putin, to me, is acting out of desperation, out of weakness. He basically took the step of this mobilization. You saw the protests in Moscow. He's now got protests from the right that he's not doing enough, from the left that he's doing too much. Vladimir Putin right now is a cornered guy that's dangerous, but this is not a time to give in to nuclear blackmail. And today you see the showdown at the United Nations Security Council. Lavrov is going to show up after some, you know, conversations that maybe he wouldn't show up, but he's got to show up.

They have to have someone in the chair or else they'll have a resolution that isn't vetoed. And I think that they have to really be concerned about Modi of India and Xi. The signals that were sent, that was unusual. Now, China will bluster against the U.S. as having started all of this today at the Security Council. But that said, this was a brushback against Vladimir Putin, that his two remaining super allies around the world, India and China, are not comfortable with this. This Ukrainian invasion. It's a terrible policy. It was a mistake. They know it. The world knows it. And Putin is on his back heel. The problem is that he will not give up. There is no way that this guy is ever going to give up because to give up, to concede,

to be defeated is regime change for him. So what will he do if he's backed into a corner? That is the concern. That's the scary thing, because it's not clear in Russia what institutions or individuals exist to rein him in. And that's the big black box of this. And that's what everyone is worried about, that he's deinstitutionalized the country. So we're not quite sure what he can do and who can stop him from doing it. And that's the only part of this that leaves a lot of analysts uneasy. We're just not quite sure what's going on in Moscow. Whether he cares or not, he is feeling some pressure. As you mentioned, Richard, protesters taking to the streets across Russia yesterday,

showing their disapproval of Vladimir Putin's partial mobilization policy that would draft around 300,000 more Russians into military service. According to a human rights group, more than 1,300 protesters in at least 38 cities have been detained. In addition, one-way flights out of Russia to neighboring countries have completely sold out since Putin's announcement. It marks the largest wave of demonstrations in Russia since the start of the invasion of Ukraine. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is proposing a five-point plan to end the war with Russia and to achieve peace, he says. In his address to the U.N. General Assembly yesterday, Zelensky called for world powers to punish Moscow and to protect life in Ukraine. The plan asks for increasing military aid to Kyiv and stripping the Kremlin of its veto

power in the UN Security Council. Zelensky also called for the formation of a special tribunal to oversee the peace process and said everyone except Russia wants peace. Ukraine wants peace. Europe wants peace. The world wants peace. Europe wants peace. The world wants peace. And we have seen who is the only one who wants war. So, Andrea, it certainly seems unlikely that Russia will lose its position in the Security Council. But let's just have an assessment as the prospects for peace. Both sides seem so dug in. Zelensky has indicated that he will fight for every inch of Ukraine territory restored. We just went through why Putin feels

cornered. He can't accept a deal. This Ukrainian counteroffensive showing some success, but they're also taking heavy losses. It stalled in some parts of the country. Where do we go from here? A frozen conflict, a long war, an energy crisis in Europe. Germans are very nervous about the nuclear issue, about Zaporizhia and other nuclear plants and about the possibilities of an intentional or an accidental nuclear crisis there, the German population. But Chancellor Scholz has shown somewhat surprising

for a new leader, surprising sturdiness and solidarity. So I think the Western alliance is holding. And you've got to give the U.S. a lot of credit for the groundwork here in NATO and other institutions coming out of just the complete meltdown under Donald Trump, frankly, of any institutional presence, multilateral presence by the United States. Think of past NATO meetings, as Richard and I both know, and UN meetings, where the Trump presence was just an embarrassment and an irritant, you know, crossing in front of other leaders and being... The leader of Montenegro.

Poor Montenegro. Yes, Montenegro. Brushed aside or pushed aside, I should say. So it is a restoration, you know, with the exception, of course, of the way the Afghanistan withdrawal was managed against what they inherited. I just want to come back to Andrew's point. I think the most likely scenario people have to get used to is all this talk about negotiation peace is unlikely to go anywhere. This is going to be a long war. And it's easier in a funny sort of way for both Putin and Zelensky to live with a low-level war than it is to sign on to a peace deal where they're

seen as compromising. Putin would look weak. Zelensky's staked out these maximal positions, totally understandable. It's easier for both of them to hold on to their long-term goals and just live with a war that's being fought at a less intense level, less loss of life, less loss of equipment. So, I think that's what we ought to get ready for. I think the Europeans will get through the winter. They've made a lot of progress in reducing their energy vulnerabilities. So, we had better essentially fasten our seatbelts. And we're not talking just months.

This war's already been going on for eight years. And it could go on for, we know it could go on for many more. And the other thing to also point out is I've been told that the Russian casualties are far greater. The numbers are astounding already. Far greater than what we have acknowledged. Without question. Yeah. You don't call up 300,000 more troops unless you need more. I know you've got to run over to the UN. I want to ask you about Iran, though. We're seeing some extraordinary pictures in the streets of Iran of women removing their headscarves, cutting their

hair, all going back to the death of a young woman in the custody of what's called the morality police there. How significant are these pictures? We don't see this very often. They're significant. But I think back to 2009, when we saw an uprising and the U.S. did not stand up and do something about it. Obviously, it's terribly complicated, but this they they can be crushed very easily especially because we understand that the supreme leader the ayatollah is frail and may actually be sicker than it has been acknowledged that could lead to of course the IRGC the Revolutionary Guard the military unit which controls the economy and everything else there, and is still demanding revenge for the

Soleimani assassination and the U.S. kill, that could lead to an even further hardening of policy. And the fact that we are weeks away from them having enough nuclear fuel for at least one weapon, when we had at least eyes on. It was an imperfect deal, but at least we had the U.N. inspectors and video and we understood more of what they had. And the buildup since we got out of the deal unilaterally has just been an incredible policy failure. So we've got real problems there. Two things. One is I think we have to assume that there will be a rough crackdown and 40 percent of Iran supports the crackdown. It's almost two Irans. We're seeing the more westernized part of society in Iran protests, but most of the power is still on the other side. I

think, alas, we've got to expect that. I don't know if there's going to be a nuclear deal. I think the odds are pretty low right now. So we have to assume that there's a potential crisis there. Israel, United States, Saudi Arabia. The question is, can we have an informal set of arrangements with Iran that they don't go beyond certain points? If they do, quite honestly, there'll be elements of attack against them, Israel by Israel or someone else. President in his speech was very clear that Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. That's about as black and white as you get. If we had had this deal, it would have parked the problem for nine years. If we don't have it, what would have happened in nine years is going to happen now.

And we're going to have a bit of a showdown with Iran and other countries in the region to make it even more complicated. The Saudis and others are going to be watching it really closely. If they feel that Iran is getting too close to a nuclear weapon, they are going to be tempted to get nuclear weapons of their own. So just when you think the Middle East can't get worse, fasten your seatbelts. There's a lot on the table over at the UN as they get together on the General Assembly for the first time in a couple of years. We'll let you get over there, Andrea. Great to see you. Richard Haas, you as well. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Coming up next, another big interest rate hike from the Fed, and it's unlikely to be the last. We'll explain the latest effort to tame inflation. Plus,

Ohio Republicans back out of a pair of debates ahead of the midterm elections. We'll explain why next on Morning Joe. What you gonna do? What you gonna do now? What you gonna do now? Live picture of the United States Capitol at 647 in the morning. The Federal Reserve announced another interest rate hike yesterday in the latest effort to tame soaring inflation. NBC News correspondent Emily Akeda has details. In the Fed's fight to bring down inflation, Chairman Jerome Powell acknowledged there will be pain. Higher interest rates, slower growth and a softening labor market are are all painful for the public that we serve. Small business owner Anika Hobbs is already feeling it.

Where will you have to make cutbacks? Yeah, I mean, some of the cutbacks that I've been thinking about is staff hours. Payroll is always one of those things that you can manage, but then that also is a huge pinch on me. With the central bank raising interest rates for the fifth time in a row. When you ring these in and you type in that final. The owner of boutique, Nubian Human, has to press pause on her expansion plans. Because we're paying more into debt rather than being able to take that money and put it into hiring more people or expanding into a new store.

The Fed's move is an effort to curb consumer demand and in turn cool inflation, with prices 8.3% higher in August than they were a year ago. But Powell's challenge is the balancing act of bringing prices down without triggering a recession. The Fed is anticipating that unemployment will rise from current levels of 3.7% to 4.4% at the end of next year. We have to get supply and demand back into alignment. And the way we do that is by slowing the economy. Something that will be felt by everyone. When the Fed raises interest rates, borrowing money becomes more expensive, impacting car payments, business loans, credit card debt, and mortgage rates,

which have now reached their highest level since 2008. Emily Akeda reporting there. Let's bring in former Treasury official and Morning Joe economic analyst Steve Ratner. Steve, good morning. So you called this one three quarters of a basis point and more to come. How long is this going to go on for the Fed? How long will they have to continue to raise rates? Well, Willie, that's a subject or a matter that has to evolve over time. The Fed's favorite phrase is to say they're data dependent, meaning they look at each piece of data and evaluate it from there.

But if you look at where the Fed's so-called dot plot, what their projecting rates are going to be, and if you look at where the market's projecting rates will be, we're talking about a Fed rate that is well over 4% in all likelihood. And I think that is pretty much of a minimum. And that implies several more large rate hikes from here to get there. And obviously, we'll have commensurate effects in mortgage markets and consumer loan markets and all the places that interest rates very directly affect consumers. And so let's look at why we're here with your charts.

In the first one, you look at the economic outlook put out there by the Fed, where we are now and where it looks like we're going. Yeah, four times a year, the Fed tells us where we think we're going. And what's interesting here is that if you take their December and June and September projections and you line them up, you can see that where the Fed thinks we're going has become more worrisome over time. As we've talked about, the Fed has been behind the curve on the economy and on inflation. They have been far more optimistic than many private forecasters. And now you can see them trying to come back to where the world actually is. And so you can see they've taken their inflation up very substantially.

I should note they use a somewhat different measure of inflation, so you won't see 8% there. But it's consistent with what the CPI, which is the other measure, shows. You can see the GDP has come down dramatically. At the beginning of the year, the Fed thought we could have a 4% growth rate this year. We will be lucky if we have a positive growth rate this year. It's possible that the growth rate this year could end up negative. And you see the unemployment modestly having to rise. You know, the words that sometimes aren't spoken about the Fed is that the only way to get

inflation down is to reduce demand, reduce economic activity. It does mean fewer jobs, and it means more people, people spending less money out there. And that's the job of the Fed and the job of the higher interest rates. You started at the top of the segment, Steve, to speak to the second chart about exactly how high these rates must go. Let's take a look at the chart and walk us through it. Sure. Well, the first thing you can see is on the two sets of straight dashed lines, those are the Fed projections issued at different times. The one they issued in June, just three months ago, and the one they issued yesterday. And you can see that the Fed's own expectations for interest rates have jumped up dramatically just in that very short period of time.

And it now sees inflation peaking at over 4% in 2023 before, sorry, interest rates peaking at over 4% in 2023 before starting to head down. And then you can see, interestingly, that curvy line, that's what the market thinks is going to happen. And the market has been consistently more optimistic than the Fed about what it thought was likely to happen. Although at the moment, it thinks that rates will be a bit higher than the Fed for a short period of time. But then you see the market thinks it's turning down. So you have a bit of a disconnect here. The market for a long time was more hawkish or negative than the Fed. And now they're somewhat more positive. But whichever way you choose to look at this, we're clearly looking at base rates over 4%, which means that

the mortgage rate, which is now over 6%, a recent record high, is likely to keep going up. And Steve, let's turn to chart number three. Anyone who's got any money in the market or has a 401k can identify this. Rising rates, stinging stocks. How bad is it and is it going to get worse? Yeah, so make this a little segment on news you can use in a sense. And there are many things that drive the markets, obviously economic fundamentals, company earnings, things like that. But one of the things that is, in my opinion, a very heavy driver of the market are interest rates, because when interest rates go up, people have other places to put their money and earn a high rate of interest or a high rate of return. When they go down to zero, as they were earlier this year, they tend to put their money in stocks, which is part of why we had that enormous bull run in stocks.

And so what I simply did here was comparing for you the timing of the various Fed interest rates with what happened in the stock market. And while it's obviously not a perfect correlation, you can see that, in fact, higher interest rates are the enemy of the stock market. That little improvement in the stock market last summer reflects a moment when Powell was perceived to be saying things that were a little bit softer, a little bit less hawkish about how much interest rates had to go up. So the stock market had a little recovery, but now another dose of reality has been put in front of the stock market. Look, the big question around all of this, of course, is are we going to

have a recession? How bad is it going to be? We know no way in economic science of slowing an economy other by having people buy less, other by people, which often means people having less income, which often means fewer jobs. And all that can translate into a negative GDP or a recession, as we call it. And I think the economists are not by any means unanimous, but I think the majority of economists would say that it is highly likely that sometime in the next 12 to 24 months, we will have some kind of recession if and when the Fed remains committed to bring inflation down to 2%, which Jay Powell said again yesterday was absolutely his commitment. So the timing of the economic cycle here and the timing of the election cycle here may not be ideal for the party in the incumbents of the party in power. Yeah, the Fed doing its part to slam on the

brakes for now. Morning, Joe. Economic analyst Steve Ratner with his world famous chart. Steve, great to see you. Thanks so much. Coming up, we will explain why the New York attorney general's lawsuit against Donald Trump and his children could lead to a more significant case against the family. Plus, an NBC News exclusive on China's efforts to recruit scientists working on top nuclear projects in the United States. Morning Joe's coming right back.