Morning Joe - Morning Joe 9/25/24

Episode Date: September 25, 2024

Trump says migrants using weapons even the U.S. military hasn’t seen before

New York City officials actually said drivers should expect the slowest traffic of the year. Yeah, you know traffic is slow when even Biden is like, you know, I'm just going to get out and walk. Yeah, earlier today, President Biden attended the General Assembly and delivered his final U.N. address. Biden called on nations to band together amid world conflicts and growing concerns over China's influence. Then he added, or do whatever you want. What the hell do I care? I don't care anymore. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe.

It is Wednesday, September 25th. We're going to bring you the big moments from President Biden's final U.N. address, calling for unity and partnership amid growing global turmoil. Meanwhile, Donald Trump continues to take a much different tone on worldwide issues, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He's also doubling down on his commitment to tariffs. We'll play for you those comments. It all comes as Vice President Kamala Harris is set to give a major economic address and close the gap on who Americans trust more to handle the economy. Along with Willie and me, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire. MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle is with us.

And President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. He's the author of the weekly newsletter, Home and Away, available on Substack. And chief White House correspondent for The New York Times, Peter Baker, is with us here in Washington. And we begin this morning with another snapshot on the presidential race. A new poll from Reuters and Ipsos finds Vice President Kamala Harris with a lead over former President Donald Trump. In the survey, Harris leads Trump by six points, 50 percent to 44 percent among likely voters. That's within the margin of error. She also leads by seven points among registered voters, a two point increase from her lead in a poll conducted earlier this month.

An NBC News poll released earlier this week also showed Harris leading Trump by five points, 49 percent to 44 percent. Willie. Yeah, it's one of those pick your polls. There's another poll yesterday, Quinnipiac, that had it tied head to head. So I think most people inside the Harris campaign even don't believe it's a seven point margin, but perhaps that they are, have now pulled ahead a bit and probably for things like this. Donald Trump saying again,

migrants are taking over American towns. He says they're now using weapons so sophisticated our military hasn't even seen them before. During a speech yesterday in Savannah, Georgia that ostensibly was about the economy, Trump continued to demonize migrants in Colorado and Ohio. Criminal havoc throughout the country. Aurora, Colorado. You saw that where Venezuelan gangs are taking over real estate. They become real estate developers. How nice. No, they're taking over real estate and they have

weapons that even our military hasn't seen. In Springfield, Ohio. So you have a town of 50,000 people. They have 32,000 migrants put into the town almost overnight. And the people are so nice. You know, they want to be nice. They say, well, we're the mayor is actually looking for interpreters. He's looking all over the interpreters because they can't understand the language is totally different. What the hell? I'm sorry. You have to move the people back to the country from which they came. So, Peter Baker, let's remind people the Haitian immigrants he's talking about in Springfield, Ohio, are here legally under temporary protected status. So he's talking about legal immigrants being deported and removed from the country, inflating the number of Haitian immigrants that have arrived in Springfield over the last seven years by about double.

But this is obviously is a strategy. This is not a mistake that an economic speech became a rant against immigrants? It's all about immigration. You know, I've been going back really lately and watching a lot of Trump rallies from the last six, seven months. And it's really a one issue campaign. That's the thing that strikes you. You know, Trump's speech, whether it's about the economy, whether it's about foreign policy, whether it's about anything, is really all about immigration. It's, you know, immigration, immigration, immigration, inflation, immigration, crime, immigration. It's just, you know, he comes back to it again and again and again. It's really what informs his whole campaign.

It's what motivates him, animates him. He thinks he won in 2016 on the wall. He's trying to replicate that eight years later. And it's, you know, it's not a surprise, I suppose, but it is a very you know, it's it's not a surprise, I suppose. But it is it is a very narrow argument that he's making because a lot of people actually would like to hear some more thoughtful conversation about the economy. And of course, he's going to talk about Springfield, Ohio and Colorado, the two places he's most fixated on. And in that same campaign event in Savannah,

Trump once again undermined America's position supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russia. I will prevent World War Three. And you are very close to World War Three. Biden and Kamala got us into this war in Ukraine, and now they can't get us out. They can't get us out. I watched him. We will win. We will. He's been saying that for three years. Every time Zelensky comes to the United States, he walks away with $100 billion. I think he's the greatest salesman on earth. But we're stuck in that war unless I'm president. I'll get it done. I'll get it negotiated. I'll get out. We got to get out. Biden says we will not leave until we win. What happens if they win?

That's what they do is they fight wars. As somebody told me the other day, they beat Hitler. They beat Napoleon. That's what they do. They fight. And it's not pleasant. Okay. Richard Haass, I'll let you take this one. There's a, I'd say, you're so welcome. But what, I mean, is this again, who is this for? Because I would say globally, it's shocking and frightening for our allies and friends. And in terms of trying to move people in swing states, is this where they are? Is he is he tapping into something? Well, he is tapping, tapping into something, Mika. And it's one of the long traditions in America. And it's the tradition of American isolationism, that what happens over there doesn't matter. It's not worth it. It's

simply cost. It takes resources away from what should be spent here. So that's essentially the tradition he's tapping into. We saw it before World War II. We've seen it periodically at other times. It's come back with surprising intensity there. Two things. One, when he talks about Russia and he talks about Napoleon and Hitler, the difference, rather fundamental difference, that's when Russia was invaded. That's when Russia was on the defense. Russia now is fighting an offensive war of aggression, rather minor detail. So it's much harder for Putin to do what Stalin did and appeal to, if you will, mother Russia. That said, I will say Trump, it's not in his defense, but I'll just

say he makes one decent point. And it's the question of what do we mean by winning in Ukraine? It came up in the debate. It came up yesterday. It came up in President Biden's speech. It came up with what President Zelensky said. No one is putting on the table what is an achievable goal in Ukraine. If victory continues to be defined, it is by many, Mika, that we have that Ukraine has to totally rid its country of every Russian troop. And I understand the argument for doing it. The problem is it's not achievable. No one is putting out there what is a realistic plan for victory. If we're going to spend all this money, what is our return on investment? And that's a conversation that this administration has been reluctant to have now for two and a half years.

And the danger of not having that conversation, not giving Americans an achievable policy strategy in Ukraine, is it allows someone like Donald Trump to come into the conversation and say, this can't work. I'll just end it and so forth. So I think the administration and I think the Ukrainian government have to begin to fill the space and explain what is an achievable strategy in that country. First of all, I was struck by the two clips we just played there from Trump, first about the migrants and then about Ukraine, how every word was a lie. Every word was a lie. There's not even a pretense of a truth there, the way he depicted all of these scenes. But picking up the point on Ukraine,

Mike, Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, will be speaking at the UN today. He's meeting with President Biden and Vice President Harris tomorrow in Washington. He's supposed to present a victory plan, details of which are a little bit unclear, other than we know there'll be pressure for the U.S. to allow Ukraine to use U.S.-made weapons deep inside Russia, which at this point the administration has been cautious about. But as Richard said, for now anyway, Kiev wants to regain its entire borders, its original borders, a noble goal, but one that seemingly is unrealistic. There's no talk of diplomacy here. But as we heard from President Biden yesterday and then Donald Trump, such contrasting views of the future of an issue that's going to affect the entire globe. Well, here's the situation, I would think. No one in the United States and no one in Ukraine really, at least to my knowledge,

has defined the word victory. What does victory mean in Ukraine? We don't know. What we do know is Russia has suffered enormous casualties. I don't think we can get a grip on the number of casualties that Russia has suffered, both internally, economically, but in the population itself. Ukraine, on the other hand, has fought nobly. They are the underdog still, but they've got to define in Washington, and then this feckless institution, the United Nations down the street But they've got to define in Washington and in this feckless institution, the United Nations down the street, they've got to define what victory means, I would think. A hundred percent.

And again, the refusal to do it. I understand the principle. No one ought to be able to acquire an interterritory by force. But Ukraine is only, what, a third of Russia's population. Russia has this massive military helped by North Korea, Iran and China. So, again, we need to have goals in foreign policy that are not just desirable and principled. They've also got to be doable. They've got to be achievable.

Otherwise, you'll have the Donald Trumps of the world saying you're throwing good money after bad. You're wasting money. So that's why I think this debate, the friends of Ukraine have to reframe this debate in a way that promises an achievable goal in a reasonable amount of time. And maybe President Zelensky will begin to make that case today during his speech at the U.N. And we know he has said when he visits the White House and President Biden tomorrow, he will present what he's calling a victory plan. So to your point, Richard, so Zelensky speaks today. Yesterday, President Biden spoke at the U.N. in what will be his final address as president to the United Nations General Assembly. It was a wide ranging speech highlighting the threats to international alliances, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and, of course, the escalating conflict in the Middle East.

There will always be forces that pull our countries apart and the world apart. Aggression, extremism, chaos and cynicism. A desire to retreat from the world and go it alone. Our task, our test, is to make sure that the forces holding us together are stronger than those are pulling us apart. That the principles of partnership that we came here each year to uphold can withstand the challenges. That the center holds once again. My fellow leaders, I truly believe we're at another inflection point in world history. The choices we make today will determine our future for decades to come. Will we stand behind the principles of Unitas? Will we stand firm against aggression?

Will we end the conflicts that are raging today? Will we take on global challenges like climate change, hunger, and disease? Will we plan now for the opportunities and risk of a revolutionary new technologies. Putin's war has failed at his core aim. He set out to destroy Ukraine, but Ukraine is still free. He set out to weaken NATO, but NATO is bigger, stronger,

and more united than ever before with two new members, Finland and Sweden. But we cannot let up. The world now has another choice to make. Will we sustain our support to help Ukraine win this war and preserve its freedom, or walk away and let aggression be renewed and a nation be destroyed. I know my answer. We cannot grow weary.

We cannot look away. And we will not let up on our support for Ukraine. Not until Ukraine wins a just and durable peace in the U.N. Charter. As we look ahead, we must also address the rise of violence against innocent Palestinians on the West Bank and set the conditions for a better future, including a two-state solution where the world, where Israel enjoys security and peace in full recognition and normalized relations with all its neighbors,

where Palestinians live in security, dignity, and self-determination in a state of their own. So, Peter Baker, touching on all the hot points, the flashpoints around the world right now, but also in a moment that probably the speech will be remembered for, President Biden talking about his decision to step aside and not run for a second term, say it was a very difficult decision after 50 years in public service. He said, I love this job, but I love my country more. And in a message that could have been either directed at the people in the room or perhaps to the Republican candidate for president right now, he said some things are more important than staying in power.

It's your people that matter the most. Yeah, I think you're right. It's interesting that some of the people in that room, of course, have had power for an awful long time and don't plan to give it up anytime soon. So in effect, he's offering himself as a model for how it ought to be done. But you're right, Willie, to say that that's something he may also be targeting at a domestic audience, that is to say his predecessor and would-be successor who refused to give up power after losing in 2020 and made up claims that weren't true about the election and had a mob attack the Capitol. And it's rather striking that an American president would be having to make that point about an American, you know, Democratic election. That's something we haven't seen, obviously, in our

lifetime. So it was very striking. I was also struck by how personal it was for him. Remember, he has spent 50 years on the stage and he cares a lot about foreign affairs. These are the people he has spent his time working with, not only as president, vice president, senator, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. For him, foreign relations is really the peak part of what being president means. And I think that there was a sort of wistful moment for him and maybe a wistful moment with people in the room, given what may or may not come next. Exactly.

A lot of different cross currents of dynamics there. And also there were times when he talks about, you know, the forces that are pulling us together are stronger than the forces pulling us apart. He's saying that hopefully he's saying a lot of things like this in this speech that you you could put right back here to this country. And you wonder if he's talking about foreign affairs or domestic affairs. It's Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump, literally, if you listen to the speech. Willie, you mentioned a portion of the speech that struck you. Let's listen to it. My fellow leaders, let us never forget

some things are more important than staying in power. It's your people that matter the most. Never forget, we are here to serve the people, not the other way around. Because the future will be won by those who unleash the full potential of their people. To breathe free, to think freely, to innovate, to educate, to live and love openly without fear. That's the soul of democracy. It does not belong to any one country. Jonathan Lemire, again, another one of those moments where you could apply it around the world or right here. And it seemed he was speaking directly to Donald Trump, potentially. There are a lot of audiences for that line, domestic and foreign.

And I'm told by Once in a Year USA, that line there about putting people ahead of your own political power. Also, and the prime minister, Netanyahu in Israel, who, of course, has made decisions to prolong this war. Some of the Biden world feel as opposed to prioritizing getting those hostages out. And Richard, let's talk about the Middle East right now, because that's shadowed the president's speech last night. I mean, he certainly made a compelling argument that the world he inherited post-Trump was full of turmoil. He rebuilt alliances. He announced again America's presence on the world stage. That, I think, is a universal agreement. However, it's harder case for him to make that the world is a safer place now than it was four years ago because of Ukraine, because of the situation in the Middle East.

And he certainly urged Israel and Hezbollah to de-escalate. But right now, everything we're seeing out of the Middle East is these two sides are only heading closer and closer to what could be an all out war. That was the yin and yang of the speech, Jonathan. On one hand, we heard yesterday what I would say is the last major internationalist speech by a Cold War generation president. We're never going to hear that again. He is comfortable with American leadership. When he approaches the world, it's through America's allies.

The centerpiece of his foreign policy is Ukraine, the gathering of NATO against aggression. That is the sweet spot for Joe Biden. And again, he is of a generation that that comes naturally. Interestingly enough, Donald Trump is the same generation and he's just the opposite. But we're never going to hear exactly something like that again. The problem with the speech in part was, as you say, the world is a much messier place than it was when he became president. You have Ukraine, you have the Middle East, you have Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a self-inflicted wound by Trump and Biden. Ukraine was inflicted by Putin. Middle East, though, the gap between American rhetoric and realities, we have the

problem, a persistent problem, where for nearly a year now, close on 12 months, we have been urging the Israelis not to do certain things or to do them differently. And essentially, one of our closest allies has rebuffed virtually every piece of advice, all of our entreaties. So the gap between what America sees as desirable and what's happening on the ground is enormous. And that is one of the problems with the Biden foreign policy. He hasn't figured out how to close that gap. Advice is not going to do it. He tried a little bit of holding back arms one day in Gaza, didn't really turn things around. And things are moving in a direction now with Hezbollah, where the chance of something really, really large is much, much grower. And quite honestly, President Biden doesn't have an answer for how to close the gap between what Israel is doing

and what the United States wants. Richard Haass, thank you so much for coming on this morning. We appreciate it. And still ahead on Morning Joe, the judge overseeing Donald Trump's election interference case gives special counsel Jack Smith permission to file a new brief explaining why the former president is not immune for his actions. We'll talk about that consequential decision. Plus, we're digging into a brand new bipartisan Senate report on the first assassination attempt against former President Trump. What lawmakers are saying about the preventable mistakes that took place. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 90 seconds. Twenty two past the hour. Welcome back to Morning Joe. Look at that foggy, dark, looming day on Capitol Hill. Nebraska's Republican governor has announced he will not be calling a special legislative session to change how his state awards electoral votes. The move comes as former President Trump and his allies have been pushing to change Nebraska to a winner-take-all system.

Nebraska currently splits its three electoral votes across its three congressional districts, typically the district that contains Omaha votes blue, giving Democrats an electoral vote in the reliably red state. The push to change the allocation of votes failed this weekend when one Republican state senator voiced opposition because of the election being so close. Willie. Meanwhile, the judge overseeing former President Trump's election interference case has granted a request from prosecutors to file an oversized legal brief arguing why Trump should not be immune from criminal prosecution in this case. In a brief order yesterday, Judge Tanya Chutkan allowed special counsel Jack Smith and his team to file a presentation about why the Supreme Court's immunity decision should not lead to a dismissal of the charges. Trump's attorneys fought the request, arguing it could improperly influence the 2024 election. Joining us now is former U.S. attorney and MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance. She's co-host of the Sisters in Law podcast. Joyce, great to see you. So just help us take a step back here for our viewers. And what exactly might we see in this 180 page brief that probably be heavily redacted,

but also might shed some light on the case against the former president? So the Supreme Court has ordered Judge Tanya Chutkan to create a detailed factual record to buttress her consideration of what charges and what evidence in this case is covered by their new presidential immunity doctrine. The government has four counts in the indictment, lots of evidence to support it. She'll have to go through that line by line and piece by piece and decide what can't be presented because presidential immunity prohibits it and what the government can use as it goes forward. But ultimately, the Supreme Court will be passing on her decision. There will be a second appellate process before this case goes to trial. So they're simply directing her to do what judges and lawyers do every day in cases across this country,

develop the factual record that supports your decision making process so that we can review it on appeal. So Joyce, in addition to a lot of the nuggets of information and evidence contained in this document, it will be sealed so we won't be getting probably leaks on it. But is there a timeline here on when this case might pop out and go public? Yeah, that's a great question, Mike. I think what will happen here, what Jack Smith has indicated to the court in his motion to exceed the page limit last week, is that he'll try to keep the sensitive information in this brief under seal. And that should be one occasion in this case where Donald Trump doesn't fight the special counsel. Everyone will want that protective order to stay in place.

So what we'll see, this will take us back to the Mueller era, where we saw these big filings with large blocks of big black stripes on the pages, concealing the parts that you most wanted to read. I think that's what we can expect to see here. There may be some interesting information that's deemed non-sensitive, but in terms of it coming out in the public's eye, that will certainly happen at trial. It may happen earlier as there's briefing about issues. Trump will again move to dismiss the charges against him. But we can expect at least for the moment that most of the juicy tidbits, for instance, whether Jack Smith has picked up any new cooperating witnesses, that's likely to remain under seal. Former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance, thank you very much for coming on. And Peter Baker, I want to turn to something that you wrote

about Liz Cheney, but it connects to all of these, all these legal cases and ongoing updates to these cases. Most people cannot separate Donald Trump in some way, shape or form from January 6th, from liable for sexual abuse, from liable for defamation, from being a convicted felon. And one of the arguments is that perhaps there should be a new political party. I would counter that with isn't the only way. I mean, there are two choices right now. Yeah. And the Republican Party right now is led by someone who is not a Republican and continues to put out their anti-democratic values. I don't know how the Republican Party survives this and goes back to its traditional old school way of thinking and behaving. Isn't the choice for the long game?

If you want your Republican Party back, perhaps you lose this one, but you get the opportunity to get the party back. How would you rebuild in this moment of division? Well, that's Liz Cheney's point, right? So I interviewed her at the Cap Times Ideas Fest in Madison, Wisconsin, actually, ironically, the same day, same hour that Kamala Harris was speaking to a huge crowd just across town. And Liz Cheney has made clear she's voting for Kamala Harris, as is her father, Dick Cheney. Very interesting, of course, lifelong Republicans. Liz Cheney cast her first she's voting for Kamala Harris, as is her father, Dick Cheney. Very interesting, of course, lifelong Republicans. Liz Cheney cast her first vote for Ronald Reagan 40 years ago.

She's never cast a vote for a Democrat for president before. So she says, you're right, it is a binary choice. You have to choose between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. And for her, there's no choice because she has been a four-year reminder that Donald Trump is a convicted felon, that he did try to overturn an election, that he did encourage a crowd of supporters that ended up ransacking the Capitol. And she doesn't want voters to forget that, that everything else, whether it be immigration, foreign policy, tax policy, health care, all those things are secondary to a guy who doesn't respect, in her view, the Constitution. But what she's also saying is when it's over,

is the Republican Party capable of fixing itself? Is it capable of rebuilding itself in a post-Trump era? And she's saying maybe not. It may be unsalvageable at this point because they have so subscribed themselves and subordinated themselves to Donald Trump and her view, a cult of personality rather than a party, that maybe it's time to think, in her view, of a new party that would represent some of those conservative values. He's not a conservative. Historically, remember, Donald Trump changed parties five times.

He was for abortion rights before he was against abortion rights. He was for a ban on assault rifles before he was against it. All these things to conservatives show he's never really been one of them to begin with. He's somebody who hijacked their party, as they see it. In fact, even Jared Kushner wants to put it to me in an interview as a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. She's saying, fine, that party is no longer viable, perhaps, after Trump. And therefore, we need to think about what comes next. Peter Baker, thank you so much for coming on this morning. Coming up, our next guest served on Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation into Russia's interference of the 2016 election.

We'll hear their account of the historic probe, as well as their concerns about this year's election. And a programming note as we go to break. MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhl will sit down today for an exclusive interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. And you can see it tonight on a special two-hour edition of All In. Watch All In with Chris Hayes tonight starting at seven o'clock Eastern right here on MSNBC. The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

So that was former special counsel Robert Mueller back in 2019 explaining his decision not to make a determination on whether then President Donald Trump had committed federal crimes while in office. That historic decision is one of the topics discussed in the new book from three former prosecutors in Mueller's office entitled Interference, the Inside Story of Trump, Russia, and the Mueller Investigation. Joining us now, two of the book's co-authors, Aaron Zebley, who served as Mueller's top deputy, and Andrew Goldstein, who helped lead the obstruction of justice investigation into Donald Trump. Andrew, I'll start with you. Are Americans misinformed about the outcome of the Mueller investigation? it so that the report and what he put out understated the amount of interference that the president did in the investigation and understated the extent of Russia's interference and the Trump campaign's willingness to benefit from that interference.

So let's stay on that topic, Aaron. The idea of the attorney general sort of whitewashing the findings of it, putting out that letter first. I recall that the Mueller team, you guys put out a clarification soon thereafter, but was there discussion about doing more, about pushing back further to say, look, that's not the real story? Well, there was. There were a series of steps that we took after Bill Barr's letter came out on that Sunday, the 24th. The morning after that letter came out, I called the Department of

Justice and I pressed for them to release our executive summaries and our introductions. And in fact, we redacted them that day and sent them over that day and asked that they be released. We considered other steps, but ultimately we went with the letter that we sent, that Bob sent on Wednesday. So, Andrew, take us behind the scenes here about the debate whether to subpoena the then president. Look, we wanted to speak with the president. We thought it was important to understand what his intent was in taking various actions like firing James Comey. Was it because of the Russia investigation? And we also wanted to know and question him about the different contacts that members of his campaign had had with various Russian

or Russian intermediaries. He, over a long period of time, made it clear through his lawyers that he was not going to testify willingly. We considered a subpoena. The difficulty is that by the time of the investigation, where a subpoena would have been the right thing to do, it was very late in the investigation. At that point, we had information from a lot of other sources about the president's intent and state of mind, and a subpoena would have dragged the investigation out for possibly a year or two, and we may never have heard from the president. And so we made the decision not to subpoena him. So, Aaron, given the passage of time, and it seems like a century ago that we were talking

about this as a live news event. Yeah. But given the passage of time and the events that have occurred within that time, all of the charges that could have been leveled against then President Trump, many of them could still be level level today, I would assume, despite maybe a statute of limitations running on them. But what would happen today, given the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity? Well, it's hard to know with certainty, but you're right. It's unclear that anything could actually proceed at this point. The recent Supreme Court decision is that the president is immune for official actions. And a lot of what we were examining probably falls within the ambit of official actions. Firing Jim Comey, he's an executive officer. That's probably an official

action. Terminating a federal investigation, the investigation of Mike Flynn, for instance, probably an official action. So it's unclear that much of what we did could have been investigated. And real question about whether any of that could actually be charged. So Andrew, sitting there, all the work that the group did, all the work is still there. It's still out there. It could still be looked at. It's not for the Supreme Court decision. How does that make you feel in terms of the effort and the energy that not only you two, but the entire team put into this investigation? Look, one reason we wrote the book is to show in, I think, very clear terms what the investigation was really about, how we made the decisions we made during the period of time, and to look back at the facts that we looked at and uncovered, that Russia did, in fact, interfere in a very sweeping way. Russian military

intelligence hacked into Democratic Party accounts and then spread stolen emails in order to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. We detail that in the book in a way to try to bring back what it was that we thought the investigation found. Mike, do you mind if I add to that? One thing I would add is a central message of this book is that it is critical that there be a method or a mechanism for investigating a sitting president, whether it's Donald Trump or any future president. That's a central message of this book.

Andrew, I'll go to you first, but would love to hear from both of you on this. It's become gospel within the MAGA world that the Russia investigation was a, quote, hoax. He says, Donald Trump, Russia, Russia, Russia. They didn't find anything on me because you didn't recommend charges against the former president, despite the cataloging of the obstruction that we found in the cataloging of what you started to lay out, Andrew, here that Russia did, in fact, do during the 2016 election. So I'm just curious, as someone who has seen all the evidence, studied this as much as anybody on the planet,

what is your reaction to the idea that Russian interference in the 2016 election was a hoax? Look, it's a problem. It was clearly not a hoax. The dismissal of the findings of the investigation I think has a long-term effect. Russia is interfering in the election now, by all accounts. Intelligence reports are showing it. The Department of Justice is bringing cases that show Russian interference. And Americans should know what a foreign power is doing to try to affect our elections. We don't want elections to be decided by a foreign adversary. We want elections to be decided by a foreign adversary. We want elections to be

decided by fellow Americans. The only thing I would add to that is one of the critical ways that we can defend against foreign election interference is by understanding and knowing that it's happening. So the message has to be this is happening. Be aware. All right. The new book, Interference, the inside story of Trump, Russia and the Mueller investigation is on sale now. Co-authors Andrew Goldstein and Aaron Zebley. Thank you both very much for coming on the show this morning. We appreciate it. And still ahead on Morning Joe, we're going to speak with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal after the Senate approved a bill to boost Donald Trump's secret service protection. Also ahead, former Georgia House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams. She'll join the conversation with her new book, Stacey Speaks Up, which empowers children to make a difference. Morning Joe will be right back. Rojas on the ground at third.

Machado touches third. Fires to second. Out there. Out at first. Oh, my goodness. It's a triple play. It ends the ball game. The San Diego Padres have clinched their spot in the postseason

after a magical 2024 campaign. Will this finally be the year for the faithful? How's that for a way to get into the playoffs? The San Diego Padres turning a game-ending triple play to beat the Dodgers 4-2, securing a spot in the playoffs. Padres improving to a major league best 41- 17 since the All-Star break. They have been great. They continue to apply pressure in a quest for their first NL West title since 2006, now cutting the Dodgers division lead down to two games with five to play. In Atlanta, Braves center fielder Michael Harris finished a triple shy of the cycle as rookie right-hander Spencer

Schwellenbach allowed just three hits and a run over seven innings of work. And the Braves improved their playoff hopes with a 5-1 win over the New York Mets last night, the opener of a pivotal three-game series for both teams. The Braves move now one game behind the Mets and just a half game behind the D-backs who lost to the Giants. All this in the battle for the National League's final two wildcard spots. Over in the American League, the Houston Astros, AL West champions for the fourth consecutive year, earning their seventh division crown in the last eight seasons. Many of them tainted, of course, with a 4-3 win over the Seattle Mariners last night.

Houston's latest title comes after trailing the Mariners by 10 games. Back on June 18th, Astros host a best of three wildcard series next week against the American League's number six seed, which will be an opponent coming from among the group of the Royals, the Tigers, the Twins, and the Mariners. In the Bronx last night, the Yankees AL East title celebration on hold at least for one more night. After a 5-3 loss to the Orioles, the O's win combined with the Twins' loss to the Marlins secures Baltimore a second straight trip to the postseason. The Yankees locked up a playoff berth last week, can win the division though, with just one more victory and they're really playing for home field throughout the playoffs, if they can get it. In Detroit, AL Cy Young favorite Tariq Scooble pitched the Tigers to a

2-1 win over the Tampa Bay Rays, and one step closer to an improbable postseason appearance. The Tigers are tied with the Kansas City Royals for the second and third wildcard spots in two games ahead of the Minnesota Twins. So Mike Barnacle, there's a lot to sort through last night. First of all, the Padres have been incredible. The Mets slipping a little last night, but still in pretty good shape with two more to play in Atlanta. You know, Willie, watch out for the Padres in the long run in this thing. They are a legitimate dark horse, a very good team. I was slipping between three or four baseball games last night. And I got to tell you, the thing that resonated in my mind, and Jonathan, I think you'll agree with me, is how do the Atlanta Braves keep coming up with the pitching that they come up with?

And why don't more teams call Atlanta and say, hey, what are you guys doing? Because the Boston Red Sox have been bereft of a legitimate starter for quite some time. They had one, Chris Seal, he'll win the Cy Young this year for the National League Braves instead of the Red Sox have been bereft of a legitimate starter for quite some time. They had one, Chris Seale. He'll win the Cy Young this year for the National League Braves instead of the Red Sox. But the young pitching that the Braves come up with astounds me. Yeah. Look, Red Sox have now won four in a row. But too little, too late for them. The Braves are attested.

They've had so many injuries this year. They lost their best pitcher in Spencer Strider. They lost the MVP, Ronald Acuna Jr. And yet they're still on the precipice of the playoffs. Weather is going to play a role in this final week. That hurricane that's rolling through the Gulf Coast, there's going to be a lot of rain that heads up towards Atlanta area. So there might be some rain outs. We'll need to have some doubleheaders potentially by the end of the week. But what a great couple of races here.

I don't think we should just overlook what the Detroit Tigers have done. Oh, I love the Tigers. The Tigers, who were dead and buried at the All-Star break, were a seller at the trade deadline. They traded away their best pitcher, but now they've caught the Twins and have a real shot to go to October. Yeah, you've got to love

the Tigers. How about a shout-out for Don Arcillo, our old guy from the Red Sox announcing? Yeah, Willie, we did love that. Don Arcillo, longtime voice at Nessun of the Red Sox announcer, who's moved to San Diego a few years ago, still missed by the fan base. And he, perfect, what a call last night on a triple play to clinch a postseason berth. Just a spectacular moment. And let's ask you, how are we feeling Yankees right now? They're going to win the AL East,

their magic number one. Some questions going into the postseason, but Judge, after a couple of weeks where he couldn't hit a thing, might be heating up again at the right time. Yeah, he hit another home run in the loss last night. He's hitting again. He's been hitting all year. He had that two-week little slide there. The bullpen is what you worry about. Have you found the closer? Is he the right guy? The starting pitching has been good lately, so they're playing much better. Would like to just close it out tonight, get it over with, but also you want home field through the playoffs. And this is such a fascinating playoff. You have so many teams. As you said, like Tarek Skubal has been amazing for the Tigers.

Watch out for them. And the Padres, right now anyway, look like they're playing the best baseball of anybody. About as wide an open October as we've had in a while. Exactly. Wide open. It's going to be a fun October. A little news from the world of anybody. It's going to be about as wide and open October as we've had in a while. Exactly. Wide open. It's going to be a fun October. A little news from the world of football. Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre announcing he has Parkinson's disease. A 54-year-old retired NFL star revealed that diagnosis yesterday during testimony on Capitol Hill about a welfare misspending scandal in Mississippi in which he's been accused of improperly using political connections to redirect public money to his alma mater and to his own pocket. Favre is not facing criminal charges there. I also lost an investment in a company that I believed

was developing a breakthrough concussion drug I thought would help others. And I'm sure you'll understand why it's too late for me because I've recently been diagnosed with Parkinson's. This is also a cause dear to my heart. Yeah, that's not information that most fans or most of the public knew, keeping that in his inner circle. Favre played 20 seasons in the NFL, mostly for the Green Bay Packers. Of course, he retired 13 years ago. In a 2022 interview, he estimated he had suffered thousands of concussions over his years in football. Several studies have found a single concussion can raise a person's risk of being diagnosed with Parkinson's by more than 55 percent. Farve saying famously he wouldn't let his son play football given everything he knows, everything he's experienced. And we wish him well as he deals with his Parkinson's disease.