Morning Joe - Morning Joe 9/6/23

Episode Date: September 6, 2023

Former Proud Boys leader sentenced to 22 years

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, September 6th. We've got a lot to get to this morning. The longest prison sentence yet for someone involved in the Capitol attack goes to a man who wasn't even there that day. We'll have expert legal analysis on that punishment, as well as the latest developments in Fulton County, the election interference case there in Georgia. Plus, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell addresses concerns about his health following two unsettling incidents where he froze up in front of reporters. And Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie is now calling out fellow GOP challenger Ron DeSantis as the Florida governor is slipping in the polls. We'll have his comments for you straight ahead, along with Joe, Willie and

me. We have the host of way too early White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, White House editor for Politico, Sam Stein and former U.S. attorney and senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg. Willie. Oh, sorry, Joe. Yeah, I mean, let's get to baseball first. Lemire, you didn't stay up to see that atrocity last night, did you? Of course. No, I made the wise decision to go to bed. The Sox had tied it when I called a day, and then I woke up this morning early, checked the score, and threw my phone across the room.

A tough, tough loss for the Sox and the Trop. Yeah, tough loss. Sam, what about you? I did watch it. The Sox were atrocious. They left bases low to no outs, didn't score a run one inning, and then, of course, the bullpen imploded again. I will just say the trop, the field, is an atrocity.

Baseball should not be played there. There should not be a catwalk in a baseball stadium that potentially interferes with baseballs. This is ridiculous. It's time to move the franchise from Tampa. Okay, there you go. Well, our demo. I just should have gone to Willie.

Going to soar in Tampa today, Willie. Going to soar. Going to soar. Hey, Willie, let me ask you a question before we get to this sentencing. Have you seen any of The Bear, the series The Bear? It's so funny you say that. Christina and I started it this week. We're almost done with the first season.

It's one of the best acted series I've ever seen. Truly, all the way across the board. It's really good. It's so good. I've got to say, so John Heilman, for some reason, he got into this really early. He's a food guy. I think last summer. Yeah, he's a food guy.

The first season dropped and he watched it all in two days, which sounds pretty crazy. We started watching it after I was going But we took our time because, you know, we usually fly through series really quickly. We took our time. And took our time, and as a family, we watched the first season. And then we found out that Jack, after watching the first season, watched the entire second season in a single night. So we're still, we're trying to be disciplined about this. I've got to confess to you, Mika.

I got an episode ahead of you. Christina did that to me last night. Yep. And I've got to tell you, we talk about a lot of shows here, a lot of TV shows, a lot of great TV shows here. Second season, Willie, when you get to five, six and seven.

You tell me after if you've seen three better back to back to back shows in all of television. I just haven't. I mean, five ends with... Oh, I haven't seen those. I won't tell you exactly. You saw five. You saw five. I just can't believe you did that. That's like the code.

You broke the code. That was the episode where I explained for 45 minutes why ending with Can't Hardly Wait by The Replacements was one of the moving moments of my life. It was incredible. And then you had the family at Christmas on six and seven. Richie, it's it's about Richie. Seven's about Richie.

And I'm telling you, just tears in my eyes. It's just amazing. So anyway, we've gone on a little bit too long. Just tears in my eyes. It's just amazing. So anyway, we've gone on a little bit too long, but you will absolutely love the beer. Mika, watch Seven tonight. It's called Forks. And then we'll be. I don't know how. Then there will be a realignment in the force.

Call me up. I will tell you how to get Hulu. It's like 87 times before I told you how to get hulu uh it's like the 87 times before i told you how to get hulu and you watch seven forks and the music willy it's like they're trying they're talking to me this is like this is you know i never really the john hughes films I loved John Hughes, right? But I was never that cool. I think Ferris Bueller and, you know, I didn't, you know, or all those other people were too cool. But these bear people, they're incredible.

And like you said, like you said, some of the best acting I've seen anywhere. It is. I'm always late to series. So I get browbeat and you got to watchbeaten. You got to watch the bear. You got to watch the bear. And by the time we get done with our long days and we go to bed too early, I just put on the Yankee game and that's it. But this one, finally, we sat down this week, like earlier this week.

And as you say, the episodes are quick. They're 28 minutes, 29 minutes. So you can whip right through it. So I'm still in the first season, almost finished with that. Looking forward to the second based on your pitch. But and it's Jeremy Allen White, who's the star of the show, is incredible. But all the way down the cast. Oh, I mean, to the, you know, the pastry chef, all of them. It's such a great series. So this this is a case where the hype is real about the bear. So can't recommend it highly enough. Just amazing. And now for something completely different.

TV's Willie Geist. Do you have a segue? There's nothing here, so I'll just dive right into it. No, no, don't do it. Please, Willie. There's so many bad things. There's so many bad things happening in the world that it's nice to be able to get a little bit of distraction from the bad news of the day. You know, Willie, the Japanese, they have a saying.

And go ahead. Just go ahead with the news. I'm getting. OK, and we'll pick up the edit here. Here we go. All right. Let's dive into the news here. The former leader of the Proud Boys has been sentenced to 22 years in prison.

That's the longest sentence yet stemming from the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Four other Proud Boys were handed long prison terms last week after they were convicted in May of using violence to try to keep former President Trump in power. NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delanian has details. What are we here for? To stop Bar Steele! A central figure in the attack on the U.S. Capitol has been handed the stiffest prison sentence so far. A judge ruled that Enrique Tarrio, one-time leader of the far-right Proud Boys, will spend 22 years behind bars. While not physically present during the January 6th riot,

he directed others and celebrated afterward, saying in a text message, make no mistake, we did this. Prosecutors had sought 33 years for Tarrio, but Judge Timothy Kelly decided that was too long. Kelly also sentenced four other Proud Boys last week to lengthy prison terms, but far less than prosecutors had asked for, some of them seen here at the Capitol. American citizens are storming the Capitol, taking it back right now. There's millions of people out here. This is f***ing crazy.

This is such history. Tarrio and three other Proud Boys were convicted in May of seditious conspiracy. Prosecutors said their goal was to orchestrate violence to keep then-President Trump in office, and that the Proud Boys were behind every major breach of the Capitol during the attack. Afterwards on CNN, Tarrio ridiculed members of Congress who huddled in fear as rioters breached the building. I'm not going to cry about a group of people that don't give a crap about their constituents. But a different tone in court

telling the judge, I am not a political zealot and saying to the men and women of law enforcement who answered the call that day, I'm sorry. Yeah, not not a political zealot. And yet, Willie, mocking elected members of Congress. We are a democracy for fearing for their lives that day for good reason. Cops getting the hell beaten out of them. But it's interesting. So these Proud Boys have been this week, I guess they've been sentenced anywhere from like 10 to 22 years. And there's a pattern. They get before the judge. Some of them cry. Some of them say they're really sorry. They feel really bad. And then they get sentenced and then they go on InfoWars or somewhere else saying, basically,

I'd do it again. Trump won, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. All BS. That didn't happen with Torrio. He did sound a bit contrite yesterday, got his 22 years left with a V for victory sign as he was leaving the courthouse. But we haven't heard at the end of all of these people. And of course, they're all banking on one thing, Donald Trump's victory, because if Donald Trump gets elected, these people that the United States government, that a jury of their peers actually,

have convicted of seditious conspiracy against the United States for rioting at the Capitol, for causing ultimately the death of four cops, for beating the hell out of cops. These are the very people that Donald Trump has promised that he's going to pardon. And that's what they're banking on. And some of them, Joe, have just said that out loud. The previous highest sentence of 18 years or 17 years, excuse me, for another member of the Proud Boys. He wept in court. He apologized.

He tried to appear contrite. And then when he received his sentence, called into InfoWars where he used to work and said, I know in my heart that Donald Trump will pardon me. So that's exactly what they're counting on. They have these long sentences, but they believe that if Donald Trump is reelected, they're going to be taken care of because they were carrying out his orders on that day in many ways. So Chuck Rosenberg, I'm curious, as you look at this slate here of sentences, it was Joe Biggs who called into Infowars with that 17 year sentence. Twenty two years for Enrique Tarrio was not there at the

Capitol that day, was in a hotel in Baltimore calling the shots. Surprised by the length of the sentence either way? Not really, Willie. When you look at what some of his underlings got, it makes sense to me that Tarrio would get more and the most. He was the leader of the Proud Boys, and the Proud Boys were among the leaders at the breach. And by the way, it points out a couple of things. Number one, you don't have to be physically present if you're a member of a conspiracy, in this case, a seditious conspiracy, acting through force and violence to overthrow the government of the United States and to halt the electoral vote. And if you take a leadership role, you ought to be expected to be treated like a leader

at sentencing. As a federal prosecutor, I've attended a lot of sentencings. I've heard a lot of contrition, some of it true, some of it false. Either way, he was sentenced for what he did as a leader of the Proud Boys. By the way, 22 years in the federal system means that he'll serve at least 85 percent of that. So about 19 years parole has been abolished in the federal system. He might get some credit for good time. But 22 years is a very significant sentence and well deserved. So, John, prosecutors say the fact that Tarrio was not there at the Capitol, quote, does nothing to detract from the severity of his conduct because he was a general rather than a soldier, which raises some interesting

questions about other people perhaps facing justice down the road, perhaps all the way up to the top. You didn't have to be on the grounds of the Capitol that day to have committed a crime. Yeah, I think that's a really interesting point here that he may be a general, but who's above him? And we certainly can go through the list. And the chain of command stops with Donald Trump sitting there in the Oval Office, the bunker, if you will, as he presides over what happened that day. And certainly, Enrique Tarrio became in many ways the face of a lot of this, despite being removed. He wasn't at the Capitol himself, but outspoken, does a lot of media, and was being held responsible for what happened here today. And let's remember, of course, that there were proud boys who had been in

communication with members of Trump's circle throughout his time. And it is the proud boys who Donald Trump told to stand back and stand by at that general election debate. So the links are there. So, Chuck, let me pose the question that Willie just put to me. You know, is this sort of a template here that if we go down the road and we end up with, and we don't know when, but we go down the road and get a conviction of Donald Trump for this, for the federal election interference case, which is less about January 6th itself and more about the events that led to it, could we see something similar in terms of a sentence for Donald Trump? Well, so not to be a lawyer here, Jonathan, but you have to look to the counts of conviction,

right? So you're not sentenced for other people's criminal conduct. You're sentenced for your own criminal conduct. So if Mr. Trump is tried and convicted at sentencing, the judge would look at what he had been convicted of and the federal sentencing guidelines that attend that count or those counts of conviction. But I do think it's telling, right? Leaders, whether they're physically present or not, are treated differently.

And you saw that with Mr. Tarrio. So broadly speaking, you know, if Mr. Trump is the one who put all this into motion, and arguably he did, and he's convicted for related conduct, although he hasn't been charged with seditious conspiracy, I imagine a federal judge at sentencing is going to look at what other people received in terms of punishment and that will they would try and slot Mr. Trump in accordingly. But again, each case on its own set of facts, each count of conviction with its own attendant federal sentencing guidelines. So we're going to turn to Georgia now, where every co-defendant in the Fulton County election interference case has now waived their arraignment appearance and pleaded not guilty. The 19 co-defendants were originally scheduled to be arraigned today, but that's no longer

necessary. There will, however, be a separate hearing this afternoon to consider the requests of two defendants, Kenneth Cheesebro and Sidney Powell, who are looking to sever their cases from the rest. A judge says he will ask the state to estimate how long a trial for the whole group could take and how many witnesses they may call. Both defendants have also requested a speedy trial, moving up their potential court dates. Only Cheesebro has confirmed his trial on October 23rd. Several other co-defendants are also requesting a separate trial. John Eastman's attorneys argue they won't have enough time to prepare for an October trial date.

David Schaefer's team is also looking to break off from the speedy trial group. Meanwhile, Cheese Bros lawyers are looking to dismiss his RICO charges altogether, citing the supremacy clause of the Constitution. They argue most of the charges against him apply to federal law and not Georgia state law. So Chuck Rosenberg, first of all, the effort to sever, does that make the case against Trump easier or harder to prosecute in Georgia? And any potential these people could flip or what do you see happening here? Yeah. So taking a step back, Mika, and these are all good questions. The Georgia case is cumbersome, and that's to put it sort of mildly. They charged 19 people under state RICO provisions. So a big, sprawling, complex, cumbersome case. And now you can see what happens when different

defendants ask for and receive and want different things. Contrast that with what Jack Smith did in the federal case that he brought in Washington, D.C., related to the events of January 6th. There you see a one defendant, four count, streamlined case. So not surprisingly in Georgia, you see a bunch of people sort of splitting off in different directions, asking for different things. I prefer that streamlined approach that the special counsel took. Whether or not pieces of this case get severed, whether they get tried separately, I think a couple of things are clear. You're not going to see 19 trials of 19 individuals. You're probably not going to see one trial of 19 individuals. You're going to see some people move to have their cases

transferred to federal court. You're going to see some people, to your point, Mika, perhaps plead guilty and cooperate. But there is a disadvantage, I think, in bringing a case this big and this complex and this sprawling. My what I learned as a prosecutor was, you know, focus on the most important things and the most important people. Keep it simple. Keep it straightforward. Streamlined is always better. That's my bias. That's how I grew up as a prosecutor. That's what I continue to believe. And I think that's one of the problems you are now seeing play out in Georgia. What a massive problem is the opposite of streamlined and chances are very good that this case will not be heard by a jury until after the election. The 2032 election. Sam Stein, we have a new poll out by CNN. Maybe not 2032, but it's going to be a while.

Probably not. Have a new CNN poll out that says basically the same thing as the Wall Street Journal poll says, which is Republicans are absolutely thrilled that they have a chance to vote for a candidate who stole nuclear secrets, a candidate who a New York judge called a rapist and said that the jury, in effect, called him a rapist, a candidate who stole secret war plans for an invasion of Iran, a candidate who stole assessments of America's military and where it's the weakest, a candidate who showed classified material after he was out of the White House and admitted that he wasn't supposed to be showing this classified material and that it was classified and he couldn't declassify it because he was no longer president of the United States, a president who is under trial for illegal payments

to a porn star, hush money payments to a porn star. And the Republican Party of 2023 says, yeah, give me more of that. Yeah, that's right. That's where we are. You know, it's kind of funny. We were anticipating the first Republican primary debate, thinking that it might actually shift some of the ground for this election. Fact of the matter is, it changed nothing. These indictments, these court cases, Trump's legal troubles are way more definitive, way more determinative on the course of this primary than anything else, and in ways that sort of defy logic, right?

The more trouble he gets in, the more that the legal system is stacked up against him, the more that Republican primary voters rally to his side. And those poll numbers that you just had up from that CNN poll show a real split here. I mean, the Republican voting electorate seems to find these cases not a big deal. They are very dismissive of the charges. They don't think it disqualifies Trump at all. The larger voting electorate does find them, with the maybe exception of the hush money case, does find them to be disqualifying. And, you know, that in theory creates a real problem for the Republican Party in about four

or five months time, because everything we know about this primary is that it's a glide path for Trump. There's no incentive for him to participate in any of the forthcoming debates after what just happened with the first one. All he has to do, he's barely campaigning. All he really has to do is just sort of stay put and win with the current voting electorate that he has. And then the Republican Party's got a real quagmire on its hands. I'm going to come back to this right now. We're following a new development in a criminal case that has gripped much of the country this past March. Lawyers for Alec Murdoch, the former South Carolina attorney convicted of killing his wife and son, are seeking a new trial. Murdoch's legal team argues they have uncovered evidence of jury tampering and are

calling for an investigation. NBC News correspondent Kathy Park has the details. A surprising motion filed by Alec Murdoch's defense attorneys accuses a county clerk of court, Becky Hill, of jury tampering. And now the legal team is demanding a new trial and a federal investigation. The clerk of court had improper private communications with the jurors. Hill did not respond to NBC News' request for comment. In court documents, Murdoch's attorneys claimed that Hill had frequent private conversations with a jury foreperson, told jurors not to be fooled by Murdoch's testimony, asked jurors for their opinions about Murdoch's

guilt or innocence, pressured them to reach a quick verdict, and invented a story about a Facebook post to remove a juror she believed leaned in favor of the defense. Murdoch's attorney, saying Alec still maintains his innocence. What has he shared with you with his latest motion? Well, I can't talk about attorney- attorney client privilege information. I can tell you that when I shared with him the affidavits, he's a lawyer. He was astonished. He was shaking. He was in disbelief. Months after the trial ended, Hill published a tell-all book, even writing about visiting the murder scene. Some of us, either from the courthouse, law enforcement, or jury at Moselle, had an epiphany and shared our thoughts with her eyes. I knew, and they know, that Alec was guilty.

Murdoch's attorneys claim Hill betrayed her oath of office for money and fame. She's trying to make money off of it. She's selling the book. Earlier this year, the jury found Murdoch guilty of killing his wife Maggie and his son Paul, the judge handing down two life sentences. What's the likelihood of a new trial? These motions are always difficult to win. The defendant has to show not only that they, in fact, just discovered this evidence, but it's evidence that would probably affect the outcome of a new trial. So, Chuck, when I saw the headline of this, I rolled my eyes and said, oh, my God, here

they come again. But then when I actually read the contents of pleadings, I mean, if you have a clerk of court saying don't be fooled by the defendant's testimony. Talk about that and all the other things you heard there. If, in fact, those statements can be verified, does he have a chance for a new trial? If those statements can be verified, yes, quite possibly. See, here's the problem. Juries are sacrosanct. Nobody gets to talk to jurors about the case.

Jurors can't even talk about the case among themselves until all the evidence has been submitted and they've been instructed on the law by the judge. So if there's some outside influence on the jury and on its deliberations, and particularly if it's coming from a member of the court family, in this case, allegedly from the clerk of court, that's a problem. So what happens here? It's possible the judge is going to question individual jurors. Judges don't like to do that. Typically, you give great deference to the findings of a jury and you presume that they followed the law and acted appropriately. But these affidavits may prompt the judge to question an individual jurors. And if it turns out that the clerk of court, in fact, approached them or said certain things or suggested certain things or, as she

wrote, you know, communicated with her eyes, whatever the heck that means. It could be the basis for the judge granting to Mr. Murdaugh a new trial. It doesn't mean he's going to walk free. But is it a headache for the government if they have to retry him? Absolutely. And could there be a different outcome at a second trial? Of course. So, you know, much remains to be written about this case. Much remains to be learned. These are serious accusations. And I imagine the judge will take it seriously. From the Proud Boys to the Murdoch trial and everything in between, Chuck Rosenberg truly can do it all. Chuck, thanks so much. We appreciate it. A massive manhunt continues in Pennsylvania for a prisoner on the run.

Still this morning, a school district in Chester County, Pennsylvania, is shut down again today, six days after a convicted killer escaped from a nearby prison. And now authorities are expanding their search. NBC News correspondent George Solis has the latest. Authorities confirm these new images show what convicted killer and escaped inmate Daniello Cavalcante looks like after nearly a week on the run. The photos confirm that Cavalcante has not changed his appearance, but also that he has obtained a backpack, a duffel sling type pack, and a hooded sweatshirt. The pictures captured from a trail camera on the property of a botanical garden five miles from the Chester County prison where Cavalcante escaped from last Thursday. Police say the five-foot Cavalcante has been able to elude capture, potentially moving beyond initial police lines, in part because he is within a heavily wooded area. Obviously, I wish we would have been able to capture him without him getting through that perimeter, but it is also not shocking.

It's dark. It's a large area. Authorities now expanding the search area, which had been focused on a two mile radius outside the prison where there had been multiple sightings, including one captured on doorbell camera. The only thing I had to defend myself was a picture frame. Brian Drummond says Cavalcante was in his home on Friday. And then while upstairs, he saw the escaped inmate on the ground floor and flicked light switches on and off. And then he flipped the light switch back a few times, which was the real panic moment where I turned to my wife and I said, he's here in the house.

The ongoing search prompting schools to shut down. How ready are you for this just to all be over? I long it to be over yesterday. It's scary. In recent days, residents have been receiving calls like this one, obtained by NBC News, alerting them to stay vigilant with Cavalcante on the loose. If you see him, do not approach and call 911 immediately. He is convicted of homicide and presumed extremely dangerous.

Last month, Cavalcante, who was originally from Brazil, was sentenced to life in prison for the brutal stabbing murder of his ex-girlfriend. Police broadcasting audio recordings from high above of Cavalcante's own mother urging him to turn himself in. He's a bad guy. He needs to be in custody, and we're determined to capture him. NBC's George Solis with that report and still ahead on Morning Joe, the latest on Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's condition after the Capitol's attending physician put out a letter about the senator's health. Plus, the United States issues a new warning to North Korea amid an expected meeting between Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin later this month.

What the Biden administration is saying about a possible arms deal. And this comes as Secretary of State Blinken makes an unannounced trip to Kiev. NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel is there and joins us live with details about that visit. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. I can't wait. I can't wait. Black picture of the White House at 633 in the morning. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is in Kiev this morning meeting with key Ukrainian officials, including President Zelensky. Moments ago, Blinken wrapped up a meeting with the country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, reaffirming America's commitment to helping Ukraine. I'm here first and foremost to demonstrate our ongoing and determined support for Ukraine

as it deals with this aggression. We've seen good progress in the counteroffensive. It's very heartening. We want to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs not only to succeed in the counteroffensive, but has what it needs for the long term to make sure that it has a strong deterrent, strong defense capacity, so that in the future, aggressions like this don't happen again. Today's visit marks Blinken's fourth to Ukraine since the war began. According to senior State Department officials, he is expected to announce more than $1 billion in new funding for Ukraine.

Joining us live from Kyiv, NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel. Richard, it's good to see you. So tell us more about what Secretary Blinken is doing today and how important this show of support for Ukraine is coming from the United States. So good morning, and it's good to be back here in Ukraine. And I think, according to State Department officials who've been briefing reporters, that this trip is really designed to show U.S. support, to connect with the Ukrainian government as it is now three months into this offensive. One senior U.S. official described this as a going back to school moment, that the summer is over. The U.S. is getting back to work. Congress is getting back into session. The U.N. General Assembly meeting is taking place in New York in just a couple of

weeks. President Zelensky is likely to attend that as well. So it is a time to show support, a time to get on the same page and to bring this war back front and center to the American public at a time when the American people haven't been focusing as much on this conflict over the summer and over the last several months as this offensive has been going on. So it's really a time to coordinate and to reinvigorate U.S. support going into the fall. So, Richard, what is the true sense on the ground there in Ukraine of how this counteroffensive, as you say, now three months in, much discussed, much anticipated counteroffensive. There's been some frustration expressed at the slow pace of things to be expected in a long ground war like this.

But how is it going from the view of officials there in Ukraine? It's been incredibly difficult. And I think that anyone who watches wars for a long time understands that they're not linear. They come in phases. And this phase of the war is extraordinarily difficult because it is the Ukrainians who are not defending themselves. When this war began, Russia, under Vladimir Putin, launched an invasion, tried to take the capital, tried to capture Kiev, and then lost. And then the Ukrainians were very effective in chasing down those Russian troops, driving them back to the border. And we saw dramatic advances from the Ukrainians as they were attacking, retreating Russian troops.

Now the Russians are dug in and they're dug in along a 600 mile front line. They have three layers of defenses. There are dragon's teeth. There are landmines and they're fighting right close up against the Russian border. So it is very difficult for the Ukrainians to break through these fortified positions. And the landmines, according to Ukrainian officials, we're talking about millions of landmines, millions of individual explosive devices that cover an area roughly the size of Florida. So you're sending Ukrainian troops in relatively small groups, platoon size, to try and punch a hole through these incredibly fortified positions. And the Ukrainians have been

doing this and they've been experiencing very heavy losses on both sides, according to some U.S. estimates. We're talking now about 500,000 killed or injured on both sides, roughly 300,000 Russian killed or injured and 200,000 Ukrainian killed or injured. Many of those happening during this offensive. Richard, I'm curious, has there been any talk about some of the some of the reporting in Frank Forrest's new book about the relationship, the strained relationship between the American president, the Ukrainian president, about him being so naive before the war started, refusing to listen to Americans saying that you're going to be invaded. And then after being accused by Biden of being an ingrate and warned that he was offending Western leaders. Is there any backdrop there? Have you heard any blowback from any Ukrainian officials? So I know what you're talking about,

and I know that is something that both sides are very sensitive about and don't want to to discuss openly. When I was last year in Kiev, I interviewed President Zelensky and one of the points he wanted to make and he wanted to make sure that that we included and came across in our interview was that how appreciative he is to President Biden personally, how he doesn't take this U.S. support for granted, that this is something that is an American commitment, but is also a commitment from this administration. So publicly, they absolutely don't want to highlight any kind of frustration or personal dissatisfaction at things that have been going ahead. But generally speaking, I think what we saw today from the visit by the Secretary of State when Blinken came, he and Kaleba gave each other a hug and a pat on the back. I think in general, the relations between this administration and

the Ukrainian government is quite warm. What they don't also talk about is their deep concerns. What would happen if Donald Trump won the election? That would be a very different kind of relationship. So whatever problems or misunderstandings they may have had in the past between Zelensky and Biden, it is nothing compared to their concerns about what could happen if Trump were to win. NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, thank you very much for your reporting and insight this morning. So amid the ongoing war in Ukraine, the Biden administration is warning North Korea against providing Russia with military support. At a briefing yesterday, White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said discussions about a potential arms deal between Moscow and Pyongyang are advancing.

What I can say is this. Providing weapons to Russia for use on the battlefield to attack grain silos and the heating infrastructure of major cities as we head into winter to try to conquer territory that belongs to another sovereign nation. This is not going to reflect well on North Korea, and they will pay a price for this in the international community. That new warning comes amid speculation North Korean leader Kim Jong-un may travel to Russia this month for a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. We'll be following that and coming up on Morning Joe with Donald Trump's mounting legal woes. Why have Republicans stuck so closely by him?

Steve Ratner thinks he knows the answer. He's standing by with new data and, of course, charts. Morning Joe will be right back. Oh, my goodness. Look at that beautiful sunrise captured over New York City. Six forty five in the morning on a Wednesday. Former President Donald Trump continues to dominate the Republican primary field. We've been showing you the new polls all week, despite four indictments against him and the campaigning much less he is than his Republican

rivals. Joining us now, former Treasury official, Morning Joe economic analyst Steve Ratner, with some data on one theory behind Trump's seemingly unbreakable support. Steve, good morning. So we'll start with your first chart. Decades of ideological sorting may have brought us here. Yes, Willie. I think one theory about why Republicans are sticking so closely to Trump is a kind of idea of tribalism. And The Wall Street Journal had an interesting analysis of this the other day. And so let's take a look at what's been happening among party members in various parties over the last several decades, because this is actually a long-run phenomenon. But if you go back to the late 1970s, you can see that only about 30 percent of Republicans identified themselves as conservative, and almost 20 percent of Democrats

identified themselves as conservative. And then if you fast forward over those decades, you can see what's happened. And we all, I think, probably intuitively thought this is where we are now. Maybe we didn't think about where we were then. But you can see that now about 60 percent of Republicans call themselves conservative and only about 5 percent of Democrats call themselves conservatives. When you talk, sorry, everything I just said is about liberals. I apologize. When you talk about conservatives, you'll see a similar trend. You can see that back in the 1970s, less than 50 percent of Republicans considered themselves conservative. Today, over 70 percent do. And the same thing, the reverse has happened with Democrats. Almost 30 percent considered themselves conservative back then. And today, that number is down to just 10 percent. So you can see that basically on an ideological basis, Americans have kind of gone into their

corners. Yeah, you know, another really surprising development. And we can't put this just down to Trump. It's something that I noticed even in my races back in the 1990s. Republicans were supposed to win well-to-do suburban sort of country club types and Democrats were supposed to win working class voters. I noticed in our crosstabs and looking at the districts after we won that I did extremely well among in the blue collar, in the blue collar areas. And what we're seeing now is a continuation of that sorting pretty

dramatically now where Republicans are still making gains among working class voters, but they're losing an awful lot of suburban voters. And the breakdown seems to come, Steve, more, I mean, more than race, more than income, more than anything on education as far as what's the last year of their educational status. Are they high school grads? Are they college grads? Are they postgrads? And boy, there's a real sorting there, isn't there? Yeah, Joe, we talked about ideological sorting. Let's talk about educational sorting. And we all talk a lot about how non-college educated whites have moved toward Trump. There's some truth. There's a lot of truth to that, but there's actually a longer run phenomenon here. Let's start with whites with college degrees. And you can see, as you would have imagined back in 1990, 55 percent

of whites with college degrees identified themselves as Republicans, and only about 40% of Democrats identified themselves with college degrees as Democrats. And so then you can see the percentage of people with college, whites with college degrees who identified as Democrats goes up, and the percentage of Republicans with college degrees goes down. And so we've had this flip and you can see here it did it did happen a little bit faster during the Trump during the Trump period when whites with college degrees more move more to Democrats and away from Republicans. And then you can see that if you look at whites without college degrees, the so-called working

class whites that we talk a lot about, they were actually surprisingly evenly divided between the two parties until about six or seven or eight years ago. And then you started to have this shift that we've all talked so much about where whites without college degrees moved into the Republican Party and out of the Democratic Party. And that really shows up in support for Donald Trump in almost every poll we look at. And Steve, as we move to your third chart, get to the personal, which is that somewhere along the way, our political leaders started to tell us that the other side wasn't just wrong, but that it was evil, that they were enemies. And that shows up here as well. So under the theory, one consequence is that as people have moved into their corners, they move further away

from each other and become more hostile to each other. And these numbers are actually really incredibly dramatic and actually incredibly depressing when you think about it. So if, again, you go back to the early 1990s, you can see that members of both parties, most of them did not view the other party unfavorably. Only a small percentage viewed the other party unfavorably. 20 to 30 percent for Democrats, about 10 percent for Republicans. And then you can see this extraordinary, extraordinary climb up here to where now between 50 and 60 percent of both parties view the other side extremely unfavorably. And so this is a lot of the hostility. And then if you look at some

other some other kinds of questions, is the other party closed-minded? Is it dishonest? Is it unintelligent? If you look even at immoral, if you look at lazy, you would find significant increases over this time period on both sides in terms of how they view the other party. So this is part of why I think we're in this period of unbelievable partisan hostility and also why as they move into their corners, each party tends to protect its own. And in this case, Donald Trump. Well, by the way, let's look at partisan animosity and let's just go through the years there, Steve. Let's zoom in on those years. and you look 1994 Democrats. The animosity doubles, nearly doubles.

That's when Gingrich and people like me came to Congress. That's the first time Republicans controlled the House of Representatives in 40 years. Went down a little bit. Ninety eight. But then you had impeachments ticking up. George W. Bush, the Iraq war in 2003 continues to spike up. 2006, you had Hurricane Katrina. I had the Iraq war melting down. That continued. Goes down a little bit at the beginning of Barack Obama's term, but then just keeps going up. Yeah, you can see the Obama impact here. And then, of course, here you can see the Trump years and a huge jump in animosity between the two parties. And so, yeah, Joe, you've, I think, identified a lot of the key drivers of this

over this long period of time. Well, and I just want to say, you look at the Obama years, it's really those Obama years from 2009 to early 2017, not really any more dramatic than the spikes that we see. In fact, it goes down at some point in the late 90s, then starts going up really. Yeah. So, yeah, it's just this it seems like this steady climb for conservatives and their animosity, of course, Democrats spiking pretty high during the Bush years. Yeah, it's look, it's on both sides. As you can see, the lines are very close. But again, as people have moved into their corners, they tend to be unbelievably hostile

to the other side. And again, some tend to be unbelievably hostile to the other side. And again, some of these personal qualities to call the other side close minded, dishonest, unintelligent, lazy, immoral. Those are pretty strong words for a very substantial percentage of each party to think about the other side. Yeah, no doubt about it. Steve Ratner at the big board. Is that what we call it? Do we call it the big board, the green monster? What do we call it, Willie? That's the Southwest wall. The Southwest wall.

That's it. Hey, OK, so Steve Ratner at the Southwest wall, as always. Thanks so much, Steve. Great. We appreciate it. Thanks. You know, Sam Stein, best description I've heard for why people stick with Donald Trump, that makes the most sense. But you can really apply it if you look at those charts to people on the Democratic side as well.

And in many cases, Trump hates the people that they hate. And so when the people that they hate attack Donald Trump, well, that makes them like Donald Trump even more. It's just again, it's all about tribalism. And as we saw by those numbers, the tribalism has been growing in both parties since the 1990s. Yeah, well, I mean, I think we could all understand and empathize with the early 90s Scarborough bump in animosity towards Republicans. You know, it makes a lot of sense. Democrats get angry. You showed up on the scene. That's the most understandable part of the Ratner charts.

Everything else, I think, you know, we have to suffer for explanations. But I don't think it's ideological, right? Like, if you look at Trump squarely on terms of ideology, this guy supports protecting Social Security, protecting Medicare. He's warned against restrictive abortion bans. He's for high tariffs. He's anti-trade. You know, he is not your traditional ideological conservative. So that ideological sorting that Ratner was pointing out, yes, I get it. They identify as conservative and that identification is getting stronger. But on the substance, I don't think it's consistent. What I think is really happening is what you're talking about, which is sort of cultural, tribal politics.

He goes after the people that you don't like. And that's what we're seeing now in the Republican primary, right? I mean, like the main sort of bread and butter of the DeSantis candidacy is he's going to stick it to liberals. It's not really about ideology. And I think that's the great sorting that's happening with our politics right now, that and we're living in closed off ecosystems where we're only talking to people who agree with our viewpoints. And so I think closed off media worlds, which really has been going since the 1990s. We'll talk about more of this, Mika. Also, of course, when you say more Republicans are more conservative than ever, Republicans are more conservative than ever. They're really not. It's it's again, it's it's tribalism.

They may identify themselves as conservatives, as cultural markers. But you actually look at the ideological issues. You look at the debt. You look at the size of government. You look at the expansion of power of authoritarian type figures. You look at their bizarre positions on Russia, their bizarre positions on attacking the United States military,

on attacking law enforcement personnel and the FBI, et cetera, et cetera. They are not conservative, but they identify themselves. It's just like calling yourself an evangelical for millions and millions of Americans who don't go to church. It's a cultural marker. So more on this at the top of the hour.

Absolutely. Sam Stein, thank you very much.