Morning Joe - Morning Joe 9/26/22

Episode Date: September 26, 2022

Trump threatened democracy after 2020 election, say 54 percent of voters in polling

We have been very clear with the Russians publicly and as well as privately to stop the loose talk about nuclear weapons. Privately, the United States has been in communication with the Kremlin about these threats of nuclear war. Yes, it's very important that Moscow hear from us and know from us that the consequences would be horrific? Well, let me say it plainly. If Russia crosses this line, there will be catastrophic consequences for Russia. The United States will respond decisively. The U.S. issues a stern warning as Vladimir Putin intensifies his nuclear rhetoric amid a faltering military campaign in Ukraine. The Biden administration says it has told Russia privately exactly what the consequences would be for using a nuclear

weapon. We'll have the very latest on that. Plus, a head turning new revelation concerning the attack on the Capitol. What a former adviser to the January 6th committee says about a phone call between the Trump White House and a rioter while the attack was underway. Also this morning, Tropical Storm Ian has just strengthened into a Category 1 hurricane as it continues its track toward Cuba and Florida. We're watching that. And it is just six weeks until voters decide the balance of power in Congress. We'll tell you where things stand this morning and what's in play. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Monday, September 26th. We begin with the new polling from The New York Times that shows 54 percent believe Donald Trump threatened American democracy when he left office. 51% believe he committed

serious federal crimes. And 53% hold an unfavorable view of the former president. It is the, if the next presidential election were held today, 45% would support Joe Biden, 42% Donald Trump. And Joe, these numbers in line with a lot of polls that we've been looking at lately over the past couple of weeks, that coupled with how some voters are feeling about different changes in policy, abortion and the migrants issue. It's convoluting things for Republicans. Well, I think they have it in the back. I think I think it's I think it's taking an election year that was supposed to be easy for the Republicans. And I think it's making so many races tight.

We do these generic ballot tests. And usually if they're tied, that's good news for Republicans because they usually outperform by three or four percent of the generic ballot. You really have to look at the individual races. You look at the polling, whether it's in Wisconsin, whether it's in Pennsylvania, whether it's in Michigan, whether it's in Georgia. In so many of the races, whether you're looking at the Senate races, the gubernatorial races, they are really tight. And so this is, I really think, whether you're talking about Arizona, where Masters is supposed to be way behind, or Pennsylvania, where Fetterman is supposed to be way ahead. If you're looking at Georgia, where the polls go back and forth.

If you're looking at any of these states in the Senate races, I think most of them are going to be Ron Johnson in Wisconsin. You look what's happening in Ohio. Those races are going to be tight. Most likely, unless something changes, we're going to be staying up late on election night trying to figure out who's in control of the United States Senate again. So it is tight. I will say, though, more interesting, this Washington Post poll actually seemed to lean more towards Republicans than the four or five polls we saw over the past week or so. The through line through all of those polls, a majority of Americans think Donald Trump committed a crime, a majority of Americans think Donald

Trump committed a crime. A majority of Americans hold an unfavorable view of him. In several polls, his approval ratings dipping down into the mid to low 30s. All of these investigations, all of the potential crimes he committed, they are building up. Here's the Washington Post poll. Again, this I don't know if they sampled Republicans more. I don't know exactly what happened in this poll. You look at the trend line. It's still positive for Republicans. This poll, though, again, leans more towards Republicans in most recent polls, which really means absolutely nothing, because if you talk to anybody who understands politics in 2022, we have no idea actually what group of Americans are going to vote. And the big questions are,

are you going to have voters that go out and are they going to be voting economics? And is that what's going to motivate them primarily? Is they going to be voting economics? And is that what's going to motivate them primarily? Is it going to be Roe being overturned? Based on that, we're going to figure out what electorate we have. And if it looks like Kansas, that's great news for Republicans or for Democrats. But but right now, you still have to say advantage GOP. Yeah. And we're going to have John Heilman on next hour. He's just coming off a really strong interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. And I point that out only because certain issues have definitely given Democrats their voice and abortion is one of them. We'll

be talking a lot more about this, by the way, in a new interview over the weekend, Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney said she will do whatever it takes to keep former President Donald Trump from taking back the White House in 2024. And that includes campaigning for Democrats and leaving the Republican Party if necessary. We cannot afford to be a society where we're tearing each other apart. That's what our adversaries want us to be doing. Right. Think about the fact that what the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party say about American democracy, you know, they say our elections can't really, they don't work, they don't reflect the will of the people. Those are the same things Donald Trump says about our democratic process. And we have an obligation to make sure,

and I certainly will, do whatever it takes to make sure Donald Trump isn't anywhere close to the Oval Office again. And last thing on this, and if that means, if you determine between now and whatever point that the best way for you to keep him from winning the presidency again is for you to seek it yourself, you're holding open the possibility. I will do whatever it takes to make sure he's never near the wall. OK. In this election, you have to vote for the person who actually believes in democracy. And that is just crucial because if we elect election deniers, if we elect people who've said that they're not going to certify results or who are going to try to steal elections,

then we really are putting the republic at risk. I'm going to ask you, will you remain a Republican regardless of what happens in the next election? I'm going to ask you, will you remain a Republican regardless of what happens in the next election? I'm going to make sure Donald Trump, I'm going to joke with that can, I'm going to make sure he's not the nominee. And if he is the nominee, I won't be a Republican. So this is the decision that Donald Trump has given anybody who has a commitment to this country and to their party. Liz Cheney is as Republican as it gets. Right.

And may have to leave the party. If I mean, her answer was clear, she'll do whatever it takes. If a run for president would make sense, if she could spoil it for him, she would do it. She would do whatever it takes because she sees him as that much of a threat to democracy. What did you think of that? I think here you have a person. This is a perfect litmus test for conservatism in the Trump era, where it doesn't matter how ideologically conservative you are. It doesn't matter what you've done your entire career. Politics is now not about ideas. It's not about ideology. It's not about a belief system of governing. It's it's it's for unfortunately for the Republican Party right now in whether it's 30, 40, 50, 60 percent of the Republican Party

based on the polls. It's just about one person. It's a personality cult. And as she said, you've got you've got a majority of the Republican Party right now run by election deniers. I certainly understand there's a huge difference between Republicans in the United States Senate right now and Republicans in the United States House. I understand that'll make a lot of people angry that are watching this, but there are different gradations. But Liz Cheney is right. As you look out across there, and I think, unfortunately, some Republicans are trying to fool themselves into believing that, oh, well, Trump's going to leave and, you know, let's just keep electing these people even if they're election deniers or not. Liz Cheney believes, I happen to believe the same thing, and I have for some time, that

it's no longer about liberal versus conservative, Republican versus Democrat. It's about whether you support a Western democracy, whether you support free elections or whether you support illiberal, an illiberal form of democracy. And I think the most surprising thing is at this stage now, we have people who are going out actively trying to take control of the conservative movement, the Republican Party, who are saying liberal democracy doesn't work. They want to move to what Orban is doing. They want to move more towards what Putin is doing. They want to move more towards move away from democracy, move away from free elections because they think Western democracy has been too

corrupting. It's really bizarre that they're actually admitting this out loud, but they are. And that's the Trump issue. And that used to be in itself an issue, whether you believe in democracy or not, or whether that's just something that you don't want to consider in your reality and you're going to stick with Trump. But then I think there are, listen, it's a tall order for Democrats to do extremely well in these midterms. We know that. We know that historically because of what happens in this type of midterm.

But there are two issues that are creeping into this that might even distract a person who is committed to Trump to the end. And that would be abortion and maybe even this migrant issue. I think it might backfire. I think it might just cut most people the wrong way. It's not Christian. It's not right. It's inhumane. There are people who just will know that was wrong and will feel something about it. And then the Hispanic voters. I think what you're talking about, obviously, is where Ron DeSantis takes people that have fled a communist country.

Republicans. Yeah. But specifically, Ron DeSantis gets people who have fled a communist dictatorship, lies to them, sends them to an island in the northeast. And apparently it seems lied to them, had people lie to them to do it. And this is another great example of Republicans overreaching everything they're doing. They're overreaching. You know what? Obviously, the Supreme Court's not making these calculations. But if the Supreme Court had just upheld the Mississippi case, which places the ban at 15 weeks, the majority of Americans would be with them. No, they go all the way. And now we see 10 year old girls fleeing the state of Ohio to have an abortion because they were raped. And you have the most horrible scenarios being laid out. Women who are, you know, could die on the operating table if Republicans get their way in Texas,

if the attorney general gets his way. So same with same with immigration. Now, Democrats have badly mishandled the southern border over the past several years horribly. It's just that the issue doesn't seem to matter to them at all. It matters to most Americans. Most Americans believe that if you come into America, you need to come into America legally. That's where most Americans are. If that shocks you, you need to wake up. OK, you need to wake up. They take that issue, which would be a huge win for them. And they overreach

by taking people who are fleeing a communist tyranny in Nicaragua and in Venezuela, coming up to the United States and then treating them like like political pawns, these poor, hungry refugees from a communist country. It's it is the antithesis. And if you don't believe me, go to the Google machine is the antithesis of everything Ronald Reagan believed, everything Ronald Reagan did, everything Ronald Reagan would have done this again in all of these cases, Mika, and we see it with Liz Cheney, we see it in the through line here. You have a party that's not

conservative. You have a party that's not following Edmund Burke and Kirk and Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher's view of conservatism. You have radicals who are following, going down the path of where Orban is, where Putin is. And it's frightening. That's why Liz Cheney said, you know, she's a conservative. But it comes down to, do you support Western democracy? Do you support free elections? Or are you on the other side? And it's for Liz Cheney, it's pretty simple. And speaking of the other side, let's jump to our major news out of Russia and Ukraine this morning. Four Ukrainian regions in the country's east are holding controversial referendums on whether to join Russia. The voting has been condemned as a sham by Ukraine and its Western allies,

including the U.S. Russia's state news agency reported that for safety reasons, election officials are taking ballots to people's homes and that voting in person is only allowed on the last day, which is tomorrow. On Friday, NATO's secretary general said NATO will step up support for Ukraine, adding that Russia would use the compromised voting results as a way to escalate the war in Ukraine. The voting process has raised fears Russia could incorporate the four areas and then portray attacks to retake them as an attack on Russia itself. Let's bring in columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius, and U.S. national editor and columnist at The Financial Times, Ed Luce. Good to have you both with us. So, David Ignatius, there's a time when the alarm bells are ringing and you can see it on the op-ed pages of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal.

This past weekend, it seemed everybody had the same concern, the same fear. And that is how does a cornered Putin respond? Let me just very quickly. And we're going to be reading all of this in our must read opinion pages in a couple of blocks. But first, just really quickly, here's Peggy Noonan. Putin's threat to use nuclear weapons must be received soberly. He has lost hardware, soldiers, ground and face. He is cornered and escalating, increasing the odds of mistaken miscalculation. Great care is now needed. And here's Ross Douthat from yesterday's Times. Just as Reagan's horror of nuclear war turned out to be crucial to his legacy, The policies of Joe Biden, so far successful,

will be judged not only what they achieve for the embattled Ukrainians, but for the peace of the entire world. Ross also, like David Brooks yesterday, like Maureen Dowd yesterday, as I said, like Peggy in The Wall Street Journal, I'm sure like Ed as well in his Financial Times piece, concerned about a cornered Putin. What's your take, David? What should we be looking at? So first, I share entirely the feeling that as Putin becomes more cornered, he becomes more dangerous. He's taken this conflict now into a genuine nuclear confrontation in which he is threatening that if Russia is pushed back against the wall, if it feels its territory is threatened, it may use all weapons, very specifically implying that that would include nuclear weapons.

These referenda in the four provinces where Russian troops are occupying troops, where they're fighting battles every day to hold on. The idea that they're going to be transformed into part of Russia by these referenda is outrageous, has been condemned around the world. But the implications of it are enormous. If that was then deemed Russian territory, simply for the Ukrainians to continue fighting, to continue the war, to liberate their territory. Russia could say is an attack on Russia to which they might respond by whatever means they have available. All weapons, as Putin put it.

So there's been deep thinking within within the Biden administration about how to respond. We heard Jake Sullivan, national security adviser over the weekend, other officials talking about this, being more specific about the private messages they say they've been delivering to Moscow, that if you use these weapons, if you escalate this war, there will be catastrophic consequences for Russia, for its armed forces in Ukraine. Not specifying what those catastrophic consequences would be. My own view is that they would not probably be nuclear weapons. We'd respond with devastating conventional weapons, try to keep the nuclear line as limited as possible, but devastating consequences for an army that's already on the run in Ukraine. So just in sum, we're in a different phase of this war now.

It's especially dangerous. It's one that leads, I think, sensible people to think, how will this war end? What are creative ways? If you look back to Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis, you want firmness, an insistence that Russian missiles will not be in Cuba back 60 years ago in 1962. And secondly, creativity about how to solve this conflict short of a nuclear confrontation. Well, to David's point, Ed Luce, you've written a piece, The Financial Times, Believe Your Eyes, Russia is losing badly. I question that, though, because of

the atrocities that we're seeing, the threat of a nuclear war. We're dealing with Ukraine is dealing with an enemy that's crazy. And when you're crazy, you'll do anything. So how can you be sure? Well, I think the more crazy Putin sounds and wants us to believe he's capable of being, the more evidence that is that he's doing badly on the conventional military front on the ground. So his desperation is inversely related to how well Russia is doing militarily. And it is doing very badly militarily. The sham referendums we're seeing in these four Ukrainian regions, you know, conducted whilst fighting is going on, sometimes around the potential voters in these referendums, with armed Russian soldiers coming to your home and saying, would you like to vote yes

or no? It's clearly it's illegal under international law. It's not a democratic exercise, but it is another facet of the Putin nuclear escalation that David was just talking about, because these referendums would then, under Russian law, incorporate these four regions into Russia and therefore make an attack on them, an attack on Russia, which, of course, would trigger the Russian nuclear doctrine that any existential threat to the Russian regime could justify the use of nuclear weapons. So that's what's scary about this. Nobody believes, even Kazakhstan, you know, a neighbor to Russia, traditionally an ally to Russia, and Putin just bailed out its regime earlier this year. Even

Kazakhstan says it won't recognize the results of this referendum. But what Putin is trying to do, and so far failing very badly, is to frighten the West into tapering off its support for Ukraine. Actually, what we've seen in the last few days since he's been rattling this nuclear saber is an increase in western support for and resolve for zelensky's government and for ukraine's fight um but there's no doubt mika i mean you you're right this this was by no means over um and the 300 000 troop mobilization that putin's talking about shows he plans to escalate. But he's doing all of this precisely because Russia is being humiliated on the ground. Meanwhile, Italy is

on course to elect the country's first female prime minister and the first government led by the far right since the end of World War Two. According to early projections, a coalition led by Giorgia Maloney has won a decisive victory in Italy's snap election. The coalition won just over 43% of the vote, which is enough to give it a comfortable parliamentary majority. Reaching political consensus and cementing a coalition could take weeks and a new government may only come to power in October. The vote could mark a big political shift for a pivotal European country dealing with ongoing economic and political instability. It also could strain a tight knit European alliance that has been standing with Ukraine in its war with Russia.

Well, I mean, this is a real problem. You look at Berlusconi, who has been standing with Ukraine in its war with Russia. Well, I mean, this is a real problem. You look at Berlusconi, who has been blaming the Ukrainians for the war. Berlusconi is an ally of hers. And David Ignatius, this goes back to what I said before about illiberal forces pushing back and fighting a Western democracy. We've we've seen what's been happening in Hungary over the past several years. So it happened in Sweden last week. What happened in Italy yesterday? You have in Sweden, Italy, two countries that have that were founded on fascism.

Now they're going to be running those countries. Joe, the victory of a party that has its roots in Italian fascism, plain and simple, the Brothers of Italy, it's called, Giorgio Maloney's party, is concerning to everybody. It accompanies, as you said, this move in Europe. Who could think that in Sweden, a party with right- wing neo-fascist roots would now be dominant in parliament. In France, that the right wing parties would make such a strong showing under Marine Le Pen in their last elections. There is this populist rage that's sweeping across Europe, much as it swept across America in the 2016 election. I just would make two points of caution.

The first is that in all the years I've looked at Italian political coalitions, one thing I've had to remind myself is wait and see. These coalitions tend to be very unstable and fragile. Maloney is in a coalition with Berlusconi and several others. Exactly how that works out is hard for me at this point to predict. There's certainly some dangerous, volatile pieces in that coalition. Second thing, as I look at Europe, is that now for 20 or 30 years, you've had a movement by ordinary Europeans who say, I'm not comfortable being governed from Brussels. I don't want to

give up my country. I don't want to be part of something that's supranational. Every time that's put to a test with voters in France, where they were asked to support the new European constitution, they rejected it. In Britain, Britain was so angry about the European Union, it left the European Union. And similarly now in Italy, the biggest appeal that Giorgio Maloney, the head of this new coalition, has is saying we're not comfortable being governed by Brussels. We're Italians, even to the point of saying we may not want to use the euro as our money. That's not a new theme in Europe. It's one that's been building and building. And to some extent, it's because the people in Brussels who are part of the European Union just don't listen to ordinary folks. I hate to say that, but that's a part of the story we should remember. Well, and there are also so many

people from what you're talking about, Italy or Sweden or Britain. For so many people, the concern has to do with immigration. At least I remember talking to somebody, a loyal laborite member who our debates usually politically centered around Margaret Thatcher. You could guess what side I was on. She and her family loathed Thatcher, loathed Tories, loathed conservatism in Britain. And I asked her about before Brexit, I said, so I guess you're going to be voting against Brexit. She said, are you kidding me? No, we're voting for Brexit. And she said just what David said. We're tired of the EU telling us how to run our economy, how to run our immigration system, deciding who comes

into our country and who doesn't come into our country. It seems to me you go back to 2015, the refugee crisis spilling out of Syria. So many of the dramatic changes that have come in across Europe have come in part as a reaction to an immigration system that allows somebody to come into one EU country and go across borders of all of them. And it seems, again, now the concern has reached Italy. Yeah, I mean, in the British case, you must remember, Britain wasn't governed by Brussels, at least insofar as borders were concerned, because it had opted out of the Schengen Agreement, which is the free movement of peoples across Europe. So Britain had full control of its immigration whilst it was in the

European Union. And immigration has actually gone up since then. What we've seen, I think, even more dramatically, though, particularly in the last 72 hours, is that taking back control, it only really works if you know what you're doing. And the British pound is now very close to parity to the dollar. I think that the devaluation, depreciation of the pound, it's fallen by about a seventh against the dollar since Liz Truss became prime minister three weeks ago. About 13 percent it's gone down. She promised to hit the ground running on day one, and she clearly, she meant it literally.

So the Italian vote, you know, I think each country is unhappy in its own unique way, like Tolstoy's unhappy families. The Italian vote, yes, there's definitely an anti-immigration component to it, as there was with Brexit. I think, though, there are different motives for the Italian sort of far-right surge that include what we saw with Brexit, that include a very anti-woke agenda, Georgia Maloney, who does have fascist roots. I mean, let's make no bones about it. People talk about her being far-right.

She's been forced very belatedly to repudiate Mussolini, somebody she's spoken glowingly of earlier in her career, to make herself electable. She was forced to repudiate him. But she is from fascist roots. And the parties that she's going to be in alliance with, including an 86-year-old Berlusconi and Matteo Salvini, the Northern League head, they have, along with her party, very strongly anti-European, sceptical views and admiration of Putin, an overt admiration of Putin. Again,

Maloney was forced to repudiate that admiration of Putin during the campaign to make herself electable. But there should be no secret here about what they really think. So my concern is more Western unity on sanctions against Russia. I mean, it remains to be seen. We have a delay here, Ed, so I'll go ahead and jump in. But thank you. You're right. There is a real concern about Western unity. So I'll go ahead and jump in. And but but but thank you. You're right there.

There is a real concern about Western unity. I think also take note of what David Ignatius said, though. It seems that Italian political coalitions have the stability and the staying power of the Red Sox bullpen, which changes week to week. Also something and we're out of time, but but would love to talk to you about Liz Trust. Maybe you can come back tomorrow. It is hard to overstate the horrific economic impact that Liz Trust's economic policies have had on the markets. Check out Ed's piece. I don't think he mints his words.

Do you? No, he does not. Ed, hope you can come back and talk about Liz Trust hitting the ground. David Ignatius, thank you both very much for being on this morning. A lot going on and still ahead on Morning Joe. Five members of the Oath Keepers are heading to trial this week. We'll take a look at what we may learn about the plotting behind January 6th, the Capitol attack. Plus, a former staffer on the House January 6th committee is coming out with a book that claims to be a behind-the-scenes look

at the panel's work, and it comes as a surprise to members of the committee. We'll have that new reporting. Also ahead, a hurricane watch issued for parts of Florida's West Coast, including Tampa Bay. We'll have the latest on the path of Hurricane Ian and a check on the morning papers, including a new investigation into South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem's use of a state-owned airplane. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Thirty five past the hour, we could learn new information this week about Donald Trump's attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results. Five members of the Oath Keepers, including the group's leader, Stuart Rhodes, are facing charges of seditious conspiracy. Their trial will get underway tomorrow with jury selection and opening statements that could begin as early as Thursday. The Washington Post notes prosecutors plan to call as many as 40 witnesses over a projected five-week span.

They'll draw from 800 statements by those charged and also summarize tens of thousands of messages, video footage and phone calls leading up to the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Despite nearly 900 arrests and hundreds of convictions relating to the Capitol assault, Rhodes and his four co-defendants are the first to stand trial on seditious conspiracy. It marks the biggest test yet in the Justice Department's efforts to hold rioters accountable. We'll be following that. A former advisor to the January 6th committee is releasing a book built as a behind the scenes look at the committee's work. Denver Riggleman, a former Republican congressman, is set to publish his book on Tuesday against the wishes of the committee, which has tried to keep its

sources and methods under wraps. The announcement came ahead of the appearance that he had on 60 Minutes, where Briggleman also claimed the committee is aware of a call that was placed from the White House to a rioter on the Capitol grounds on January 6th. It's not clear who placed the call or whether they were in a position of authority. Do you get a real aha moment when you see that the White House switchboard had connected to a rioter's phone while it's happening? That's a big, pretty big aha moment. You get an aha. Wait a minute. Someone in the White House was calling one of the rioters while the riot was going on? On January 6th. Absolutely. And you know who both ends of that call?

I only know one end of that call. I don't know the White House end, which I believe is more important. Yesterday on Meet the Press, January 6th committee member Jamie Raskin confirmed that call. This apparently says a call came from inside the White House. I mean, how hard have you guys tried to track down who that person was? Do you have an idea of who it was? You know, I can't say anything specific about that particular call, but we are aware of it. A spokesperson for the committee released a statement on Riggleman, which reads in part,

quote, In his role on the select committee staff, Mr. Riggleman had limited knowledge of the committee's investigation. He departed from the staff in April prior to our hearings and much of our most important investigative work. He told the committee he was departing in order to help the people of Ukraine in their war against Russia. The Washington Post reports that when Riggleman left the committee, he had said that at the time that he was approached about writing a book related to the committee, but that it would not be published until next year. Let's bring in congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post, Jackie Alimany. She's an MSNBC contributor also

with us, the host of Way Too Early and White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, and president of the National Action Network and host of Politics Nation, Reverend Al Sharpton. Good to have you all with us, Jackie. I'll start with you. Wow. With this book, he decides to write it against the wishes of the committee. He claims he's going to help in Ukraine. His credibility is a little bit in question here. And yet the call came from inside the House. That's one revelation that seems to be corroborated by the committee. What have you heard? Yeah, Mika, that's exactly right. We reported over the weekend that when there were rumors

circulating that Riggleman was going to be writing a book about the committee's work, he was confronted by senior staff and denied such a project, saying that he was writing a book about a separate topic. Subsequently, he was asked again about it, and he claimed that he was going to be writing a book about the committee's work, but that it wouldn't be published until the year's end. And now his book is coming out a day before their final blockbuster hearing, which is certainly suspicious and I think raised a lot of eyebrows and upset some of the members on the committee who had previously been already infuriated with Riggleman's press tour and media rounds he was making after his departure in April. He had only an eight-month stint on the committee, and members made it very

clear that his work was important but limited. But yes, there are hundreds and thousands of tips, just like the one Denver Riggleman pointed out last night. But it's a matter of whether or not investigators on the committee are able to vet those tips and confirm them. It's sort of like the work journalists do, and they don't put out that information from the committee until they feel like they have that information on a rock solid basis. I think there was some frustration that Rogelman was putting out sort of these tantalizing information without it being fully confirmed and vetted. Yeah. Johns and Lemire, a number of things happening. Of course, the committee is going to be having another hearing this week. And so far, every single one that they've held has been riveting and disturbing and next level, actually. January 6th and maybe even some parts of the big lie are happening in this fear with those who are ending up going to jail and serving time for rioting at the Capitol. But we're taking it

next level this week as we look at the issue of seditious conspiracy. As the author of the big lie, what stands out to you with everything going on pertaining to 1-6 this week? Yeah, well, let's sort of take a step back and remember that when these committee hearings were first announced, they were greeted with a little bit of skepticism. They're like, oh, it's going to be same old, same old rehashing what we've heard before. And that has not been the case at all. They have put together not only delivered new blockbuster information, but also in a very compelling way. These have been sort of masterclasses of storytelling, and they've been so effective that we thought they were going to be done a month or so back.

And yet here we are with at least one more this weekend. We heard sort of conflicting recounts from the committee as to whether this would be the last one or not. Congresswoman Cheney over the weekend suggested that perhaps this would not be, though this is going to be an investigative hearing. At minimum, there'd be sort of some wrap-up when they deliver the report. But they also have left the door open for other hearings if more developments emerge. And I think they've done a terrific job of telling the story of January 6th and shifting the focus to DOJ.

You know, this, of course, is a separate probe than what had been happening with Mar-a-Lago and those classified documents. So they're all connected, of course, in terms of perhaps Donald Trump's unfitness for duty, Amika. But this in itself is where a lot of people believe the legal peril could really reside for Donald Trump, that at the end of these hearings, basically the committee have created a blueprint and that will be an up to Attorney General Merrick Garland, we assume after the midterms to make a decision indictment or not. And it's seemingly nearly every hearing, the argument seems to be getting stronger. You know, Reverend now between the January 6th

proceedings and all the different legal proceedings against Donald Trump at this point, that seems to be, it could be a full time job for him just waking up every morning and finding out what's the latest, whether it's the civil lawsuit against him from the attorney general of New York or the classified documents that he took inappropriately from the White House and may have criminal proceedings against him leading out of that potentially. Plus, January 6th and some members saying they might vote unanimously to push this toward the DOJ and some criminal proceedings as well. How do you think, though, this breaks down for voters? Are they hearing this? Is this something Democrats should

see as an opportunity or let's speak for itself. Clearly from the polls that you showed earlier in the show, the majority of Americans feel that democracy is being undermined. And when you wake up every morning, you talk about the attorney general, just the average voter hearing the state of New York's multimillion dollar lawsuit, categorically saying how this man did in terms of defrauding the banks and defrauding people that were doing business with him and defrauding insurance companies. Then the next day you have somebody that worked at the committee saying that there was a call from the White House to a riot or doing the riot. Notwithstanding whatever credibility questions he has, a congressman gets on television, national television yesterday and confirms such a call happens.

All of this makes a lot of voters saying, wait a minute, we're talking about our democracies at stake, as that poll indicates. The problem the Democrats have in addressing your question is that clearly most Americans feel democracy is at stake. But are they going to be able to drive their voters out? Because the same polls does not show that they are overwhelmingly coming into the Democratic Party's arms. And I think that that is the challenge, that you've won the argument, but can you win the turnout? And the challenge is whether they can connect the two. Yeah. And Jackie Alimany of Washington Post, we're going to be seeing you a lot this week. May as well just book you right now for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Thank you so much for coming on this morning and setting the scene for us a big week ahead.

Coming up, we'll have a look at some of the must read opinion pages this morning, plus an update on the recovery efforts in Canada after the powerful remnants of Hurricane Fiona slammed the country's Atlantic coast. Also ahead, Kevin McCarthy lays out the GOP agenda. If voters put Republicans back in control of the House, we'll go through it and the response from the president. Morning Joe is coming right back. I know. Oh, it's the world I know. Past the hour time now for a look at the morning papers. The Sioux City Journal reports South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem is under investigation after she allegedly violated a law that says state owned aircraft can only be used for state business. According to plane logs, Nome has used a state-owned airplane to attend family gatherings and travel to events

hosted by political organizations. Penalties for violating the law include a $1,000 fine plus 10 times the cost of travel. Violators could also face a 30-day jail sentence. In Pennsylvania, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports conservative activists in the state are inundating county election offices with requests for voting records from the 2020 election. The paper notes the move could potentially slow down each county's ability to prepare for the upcoming November midterms. In Delaware, the News Journal covers a federal judge who has issued an injunction that bars the state from enforcing a law outlawing the manufacturing and possession of homemade ghost guns. The weapons can't be traced by law enforcement officials because they don't

have serial numbers. The judge wrote that without an injunction, the plaintiffs would be threatened by criminal penalties should they engage in conduct protected by the Second Amendment. And according to Florida Today, the state has the second highest number of school-related book bans in the country. New data shows there are nearly 600 banned books within 21 school districts in Florida. The banned material most often concerns LGBTQ issues or features a protagonist character who is not white. Texas is the only state that has banned more books than Florida. And developing this morning, Canadian officials say the trail of destruction left behind by the remnants of Hurricane Fiona is much worse than anything they've seen before.

The storm uprooted trees and power lines and reduced many homes to a pile of rubble. At one point, nearly 500,000 customers across the Atlantic provinces were without power. In response, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has canceled his trip to Japan to attend the state funeral of Shinzo Abe to deal with the disaster. Trudeau announced he's deploying the Canadian military to help the region with cleanup and recovery efforts. Joining us now, we have the dean of the Wharton School, Erica James. She's the co-author of the new book entitled The Prepared Leader, Emerge from Any Crisis More Resilient Than Before. It's really great to have you on the show. I want to start with, given the challenges

many countries are facing with leadership today, why did you write this book? Could that be it? Well, unfortunately, you're right. There are a number of leadership challenges and voids that we're seeing. But I wrote this book with my co-author, Lynn Wooten, primarily because we think that there's a real opportunity for leadership now. And there's so many different circumstances that are requiring leadership, whether you're talking about some of the crises that you just had in your last segment, whether you're talking about organizational responses to threats. The need for leadership is really paramount. And I work in a business school and we're targeting the goal of preparing the next generation of future leaders. And I'm curious if you address in this and have considered the

concept of leadership in the age of disinformation. I think that has made good, honest leadership difficult in a sea of many different messages that ripple across a population and often stick. So you're bringing up a good point. And what we argue is that communication is key, whether you're in a time of crisis or not. And the information that you have regarding communication is paramount. And so one of the things that a leader has to discern is the credibility of the information that they have, where the sources of information are coming from, can it be validated by other sources? Getting a 360 degree of the kind of information that you're seeking to present out to the world or that you are taking in is really a critical

role of leadership. Dean James, good morning. Congrats on the book. It seems over the last year or so, the world has been given a vivid illustration of leadership by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has been there every day, his country under assault. He's been with his people. He hasn't fled. He is offering inspirational messages to the Ukrainian citizens nightly. And at least to this point, they have held firm in their resistance to the Russian invasion. Tell us a little bit about what you've seen from him. What kind of case study that he is? What can others learn from him?

I would love to write this case study because he is really the quintessential leader in a time of crisis. To your point, the fact that he has been present and visible and is walking the talk and he's not doing anything that he's not expecting or he's doing everything that he's expecting his military and other civilians to do in his country. So I think there's a lot that we can learn from his ability to be a human in all of this and to be exceptionally well prepared and exceptionally willing to engage in really hard decision making, but also put himself in the same position. So that's ultimately what we're talking about in terms of leadership. Dean James, hearing you say you'd love to do the case study on Zelensky leads me to a broader question that looking at your book being prepared, prepared leaders. Does the times make the leaders? Did Zelensky emerge and evolve into this hour? Or does the leader make the times? Is it the response of leaders that kind of shape and mold how things are going? Did Zelensky's kind of strength and ability help lead Ukraine to where it is and where

it is not in this battle of any given day? Or did the situation make him grow and evolve into it? I think both are true. One of the things that we argue in the book is that you never know where leadership is going to come from. And it's not always the person with the highest title. It's not always the CEO. It's not always the president. And so we have to be prepared for leadership to emerge from all places within a society, within an organization. And what we see with Zelensky, clearly he had some leadership skills, right? But we also saw some new behaviors.

He learned things through this process that make him an even more credible, more influential leader. So I think your question is that both are true. The circumstances have made Zelensky and I think Zelensky, his behavior and how he's engaging through this is demonstrating a type of power and expertise and influence. And Dean James, we're really squeezed for time, but I'm curious, you also have the attributes, the factors that cause a leader to fail really quickly. What are they? Some of them are sort of interpersonal biases that we have that allow us not to understand and take information in credibly. Another is not having the right kind of team and trusting

high quality, trusting relationships surrounding you as you're going through the fire. Those are two critical areas that if we don't have those things, you're not going to be a successful leader in a time of crisis. The new book is The Prepared Leader Emerge from Any Crisis More Resilient Than Before. Dean of the Wharton School, Erica James. Thank you very much. Great to have you on. Congratulations on the book. Come back. We appreciate it. And still add on Morning Joe, conservative canvassing groups are going door to door searching for proof of fraud in the 2020 election. We'll take a closer look at some officials in Washington state are calling voter intimidation. Morning Joe, we'll be right back.