Morning Joe - Morning Joe 9/7/22

Episode Date: September 7, 2022

Material on foreign nation’s nuclear capabilities seized at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago: WaPo

This was not just extreme carelessness with classified material, which is still totally disqualifying. This is calculated, deliberate, premeditated misconduct, followed by a cover up. What he did is illegal. It's classified information. They broke the law. Very simple. I mean, as much as it's going to be broken, this is highly classified. That's the highest stage. It's highly classified information. Many of them were classified, highly classified.

You go to jail for that. And you go to jail for that. And you should have known that. You go to jail for that. Classified information. You should go to jail for that for many, many years. Mark it up! Mark it up! Mark it up! Mark it up! Mark it up! information. He should go to jail for that for many, many years. Give the people what they want already. Jimmy Kimmel with a mashup of Donald Trump's words concerning other people's mishandling of classified documents. But wow. Meanwhile, stunning new reporting this morning that the nuclear secrets of a foreign government were among the material seized from Mar-a-Lago.

We'll have the latest on that. Plus, Steve Bannon set to be indicted. How the case related to fundraising shows the limits of the pardon he received from Donald Trump. And caught on tape, new video shows a fake elector in the 2020 election escorting members of a tech firm into a Georgia elections office on the same day a breach was detected. We'll explain how this ties into the overall election scheme. We're also following the latest in the fight over control of Congress, new polling on the impact of the abortion issue and how Democrats could defy conventional wisdom that the president's party will lose power. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, September 7th. Good to have you all with us today.

There's so much going on this morning. The pace really obviously continues. If Donald Trump thought that a federal judge's order that he got after forum shopping to get a special master appointed was going to slow down the pace of things. It seems to have only quickened it on the federal level, on the state level. The news just really keeps coming fast. And now you're even having his attorney general, Barr, coming out, saying the special master's decision was bizarre. On Fox. Saying the special master's decision was bizarre. Fox, you're having other well, people from both ends of the ideological spectrum. Andrew McCarthy, who's a tough conservative, smart guy who's who is coming out also just questioning the judge's ruling. It appears to have absolutely no precedent.

And even Barr thinks it's going to be reversed. In the meantime, again, a quickening of the pace, not only of this story coming out of Washington, D.C., regarding the documents, but also, again, Steve Bannon possibly going to jail once again. A public official who was part of the January 6th riot kicked out of office by a judge, a band. And then, of course, this fake elector story really keeps growing more by the day. And then Hillary Clinton, who really does get it right. I say she gets it right because she's been saying what I've been saying for a long time. And I said it the day after January 6th, that Donald Trump should be charged for a conspiracy to commit sedition. You look at the statute, it lines up directly with what he did and what all these other people did. For some reason, you have legal experts saying,

well, there may be a statute that fits it a little bit better. I'm not so sure. Yeah, interesting. This criticism is coming from all corners. Hillary Clinton, you would expect. But Bill Barr, who did President Trump's bidding for all those years as attorney general, has fully turned on him in this case at the very least. And that's because of all the details we're getting.

It's become so clear cut, especially with new reporting this morning from The Washington Post. People familiar with the matter telling The Post a document describing a foreign government's nuclear secrets was among the top secret items seized from Mar-a-Lago a month ago. The Post did not identify the government in question, but there are only eight other countries beside the United States with nuclear capabilities. The paper's sources also did not specify where inside the former president's beach house the document was found. In the days after the FBI search, the Post reported investigators were looking for nuclear

documents. Donald Trump had denied that reporting. People familiar with the search tell The Washington Post some of those top secret documents seized from Mar-a-Lago detail American secrets that are so closely guarded, many national security officials even lack the clearance to view them. The former president's spokesman responded to this latest reporting, tweeting, quote, The Washington Post continues to serve as the propaganda arm of the Biden administration. Instead of operating openly and honestly, they collude in never ending leaks and lies at the expense of the integrity of the FBI and the DOJ. All this reporting from the Post

has not yet been confirmed by NBC News and the Justice Department has declined to comment. So guys, obviously, as usual, the Trump spokesman not addressing the specific claims in the piece, but just attacking the Washington Post. But now, as we get the details, we knew that 300 of these documents were classified, that were taken from the White House, stored at Mar-a-Lago, obstructed by Trump and his team from getting it back to the National Archives. And so the FBI had to get that search warrant to go in. But as we hear details now, the stakes are raised. According to the reporting, it's president. The president can see it. Certain cabinet members with a specific need to know can see it. And a few other top officials in the administration can see it. But outside of that, this is top secret stuff. And it was just sitting around in Moralago.

Think about that. It was sitting around in Moralago where you have top secret documents, according to this Washington Post report, which, by the way, who are you going to trust? Carol Lennon, The Washington Post or Donald Trump, as far as track records are telling the truth. That one's pretty easy. Yeah. But but you you go go and you look at this. And again, you have people that that had top security clearances that were not allowed to see these documents because they were so sensitive to America's national security and our understanding of other countries. We had information that that most of the world didn't have. Donald Trump takes it out of the secure location, takes it out of the White House, where many of his cabinet officials wouldn't even have the clearance to see it. And he takes it down to his beachside resort, shoves it in a box, shoves it into a room that anybody, you know, that people could could have access to.

Who knows what what's become of these documents over time. But here's what we do know. There is absolutely no denial coming from Trump's team or Trump himself that he had these documents that do not belong to him in his possession. And they still haven't explained. Nobody on his team has explained. No Republican in Congress has explained. Donald Trump himself has not explained. Why did he have top secret documents in his beachside resort? Why did he why did he steal them from the White House? Why did he remove them improperly? Nobody. What was he doing with them? Not one explanation. They attack others when they find out that it's really bad news and the word gets around from Trump or the other Republicans. Hey, listen, this is tough. You may not want to

talk about it. It's worse than we think. Then they start making up things about the IRS wanting to go to Iowa and gun people down. Happened the morning after they get news that this is really bad. So they're wildly doing whatever they can to distract and not answer the question at the heart of this. Why did he remove highly classified documents? Why did he remove top secret documents from the White House when he knew the people around him knew that he was breaking the law doing it. Let's bring in the host of way too early White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, NBC News justice reporter Ryan Riley and former U.S. attorney and MSNBC contributor Barbara McQuaid. Good to have you all on board this morning. Break this down for us. If the Washington Post reporting plays out correctly,

what are the consequences of having top secret documents that even people, some of the most highest ranking people inside of his White House and in the national security apparatus would not have clearance to see these documents? Well, Joe, I think there are two things about this that are very significant. One is regardless of classification level, it is clear now that this relates to national defense information. And that's the language of the Espionage Act. And so Donald Trump can claim to have declassified documents all day. He might even have been successful. And that would be no defense to this claim. The other thing I think is significant about this

is it makes it almost impossible for the Justice Department to decline to bring criminal charges. You know, we talk about how they exercise discretion. Sometimes there are technical violations, but unless there are aggravating factors, sometimes they'll decline and just get their documents back and be on their way.

I think with something that is as egregious as this, it would really be impossible for them to decline. And one other thing I want to say, Joe, I think that there has been speculation by Trump's lawyers who are howling that this is a leak by the government. I think it's very unlikely that the government has leaked this in such a sensitive case. In my experience, when leaks like this came out, it was not government officials, but identified in reporting as this is as people familiar with the investigation. Most often it is a witness who is offended at what is happening, wants to deflect any blame from themselves and shares that information with the media. So, Ryan, to Barbara's first point about the Justice

Department now, just even based on what we know publicly, based on this Washington Post reporting and everything else that we've seen, the photograph and what was inside Mar-a-Lago. What is the pace of the investigation now? And isn't there just supreme pressure on Merrick Garland and the Justice Department to bring some charge against Donald Trump? Again, we don't even know what they have privately in their investigation that we haven't seen, but just even based on what we've seen with our own eyes publicly. Well, you know, they are in the early stages of this investigation and something that they made clear in a lot of their court filings. But this decision on the special master really does put a hamper in this ongoing probe, at least on a temporary basis. It doesn't completely shut down the investigation,

of course, but it can't look at any of the materials. It's sort of this really unprecedented, essentially, injunction against the executive branch that properly seized government documents after proving to a judge they had probable cause to believe that Donald Trump possessed these documents he wasn't supposed to have. And in fact, that fared out to be true. One point I think is really interesting that was in a court filing that sort of got overlooked last week is this idea that after Donald Trump had had that initial subpoena, that subpoena required him to turn over documents that had any labeling on them that they were classified. And, you know, we've heard one of the many excuses that we've heard from the Donald Trump camp was that, oh, some of these things were declassified. And that wouldn't even really matter, as the Justice Department has pointed out, because

what they were searching for and what that subpoena was about initially back in May and June was looking for anything that had labels of classified information. So even if it was, quote unquote, declassified by Donald Trump, he still didn't obey the subpoena. And he had all these documents, and they only handed over 38 documents. And then lo and behold, he had over 100 plus. The total scope of this is very closely approaching 1000 pages. You know, we can get to 938 very easily pages total of this year that receives from Donald Trump with classification marking. So it's a really lot of government documents. I mean, a boatload of government documents over 11000. Add on to that. That was just 11000 was just in August alone. Government documents that he was not supposed

to have in his possession overall, Willie. And so the the big question is, what does the special master mean if the DOJ finds that Donald Trump has secrets that perhaps the DOJ needs to act in defense of the country? Does the special master get in the way of that? Former Attorney General Bill Barr, one of Trump's fiercest defenders while in office, is questioning the judge's decision to appoint a special master. Here's what he had to say yesterday on Fox News. I think was wrong and I think the government should appeal it. It's deeply flawed in a number of ways. I don't think the appointment of a special master is going to hold up, but even if it does, I don't see it fundamentally changing the trajectory. In other words, I don't see it fundamentally changing the trajectory. In other

words, I don't think it changes the ballgame so much as maybe we'll have a rain delay for a couple of innings. I think that the fundamental dynamics of the case are set, which is the government has very strong evidence of what it really needs to determine whether charge is appropriate, which is government documents were taken, classified information was taken and not handled appropriately. And they are looking into and there's some evidence to suggest that they were deceived. Those new comments come after what he said on Friday on Fox News that the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago was justified. No, I can't think of a legitimate reason why they should have been could be taken out of the government, away from the government if they're classified. I frankly am skeptical of this claim

that I declassified everything, you know, because frankly, I think it's highly improbable. And second, if in fact he sort of stood over scores of boxes, not really knowing what was in them, and said, I hereby declassify everything in here, that would be such an abuse and show such recklessness that it's almost worse than taking the document. I think the driver on this from the beginning was, you know, loads of classified information sitting in Mar-a-Lago. People say this was unprecedented. Well, it's also unprecedented for a president to take all this classified information and put them in a country club, okay? And how long is the government going to try to get that back? You know, they jawboned for a year.

They were deceived on the voluntary actions taken. They then went and got a subpoena. They were deceived on that. They feel and the record, the facts are starting to show that they were being jerked around. And so how long, you know, how long do they wait? Yeah. And the facts are starting to show, Joe, that if you're in the Department of Justice and you're investigating this situation and there is a pressing situation, a pressing concern, a pressing question as to why this former president who has said many times that he would do nefarious things with information. He has said that himself. This is not me projecting. He would take dirt on a political rival from the leader of a foreign country and to bring him down. He has said that openly himself. So you have a former president who is loose. And I say that very carefully, loose with private classified information? Who doesn't care about boundaries or parameters or potentially even laws? Does the DOJ sit back and wait for an election to go by and a special

master to sift through everything? Or are they compelled to move forward? I think that's an interesting question. Well, as Barbara said, there are, despite the fact there are many of us, and I count myself as one of those, though I know many people watching would disagree with me, who I count myself as one of those deeply, deeply disturbed by past presidents being indicted, past presidents being tried. I do think despite all of Richard Nixon's crimes, Gerald Ford did the right thing. We get to a point, though, in this case, and Jonathan O'Meara, we get to that point where there is starting, at least among legal experts, for there to be a consistency on the right, the center and the left.

That what was done was so egregious, was such a violation of what presidents have done in the past. Presently very dangerous, was so unprecedented that there does seem to be a consensus coming from the right. I've read op eds saying Donald Trump is going to be convicted because it's an obvious case from The New York Post. Annie McCarthy from Andrew Napolitano in The Washington Times. I've heard it from Karl Rove on Fox News. We've now heard it from Bill Barr on Fox News several times, that this is pretty much an open and shut case. And maybe, just maybe, that is the consensus, at least among legal experts on both sides of the ideological divide that makes this makes this a little more possible for the Justice Department to move forward with charges

without them being blasted as being political by both by by one side or the other. At this point, as Barbara said, a very long wind up here just to say, I agree with Barbara. Donald Trump has given Merrick Garland no choice but to bring charges against him in this case. Yeah, charges against the former president would be unprecedented. But the more it's talked about, the more it sort of injects into the bloodstream of the national consciousness, it becomes normalized. It becomes perhaps a little less stunning. And we are hearing it from left, center and right. Hey, William Barr, welcome to the resistance. And the venue for these remarks also important on Fox News, which did its best for a while to ignore this story or to downplay

it. And now we're hearing some voices break through there. And Barr's a respected conservative voice. And yes, of course, he used to head DOJ, so he's going to back up people who used to work for him there. But he's gone out of his way to say, look, these FBI agents not only behaved appropriately, but Donald Trump behaved inappropriately. And there would be grounds here for charges. And I know there has been a lot of speculation about the political firestorm and potentially even violence. That talk, of course, fueled by some on the right. If Trump were charged or indicted, Lindsey Graham in particular. But I keep going back to what someone close to the White House said to me a few weeks ago.

And they're obviously trying to keep their distance from this, but they said that Merrick Garland, as much the frustration of Democrats, had been moving slowly, has really trying to be as apolitical as possible. But the fact that he gave the okay for the search sort of crosses the threshold that he's at least opened the door to charges. If he was never going to charge Donald Trump, he wouldn't have okayed the search. They wouldn't have taken that step. The fact that they did means this is in play. Now, I don't think it's going to be any time soon. We are just now two months from the midterms. Though Trump not technically on the ballot, he looms over the Republican Party.

It would be perceived as very political if he were charged between now and Election Day. But this is on the table. Maybe it's not till November. Maybe it's not till December. But as each day goes by, the likelihood of charges against Trump only goes up. Barbara, talk about timing, if you would. Does the DOJ care about that? Obviously, Donald Trump is not on the ballot in November, but he is the head of the Republican

Party still. If you look at any poll, if you talk to any Republican leader, they'll say he's still the de facto leader of the Republican Party. Do you suspect because of that, because we're past Labor Day and election year, that regardless of what a special master did or didn't do, the Justice Department would wait until after the election to bring charges? Yeah, we're in a gray area with regard to the DOJ policy. The DOJ policy really just says that prosecutors should never take investigative action for the purpose of influencing an election. Most prosecutors read that more broadly to include even activity that will have the effect of influencing an election. And so typically about 60 days before an election, prosecutors will cool off and stand down and not take action against someone who is on the ballot. So technically,

there's no reason to refrain from taking action against Donald Trump right now. But as you say, I think in light of his role as the leader of the Republican Party, as someone who has endorsed candidates across the country, it might be out of an abundance of caution that they would choose not to engage in investigative activity overtly against Donald Trump at this stage. I think they've got to continue this investigation. I think they've got to continue to litigate. But there's an awful lot that can be done behind the scenes, like putting witnesses in front of a grand jury and conducting witness interviews. None of those things would be prohibited. Filing charges might be a bridge

too far, but I don't know that they'd be ready to file charges before November anyway. And so I think it's unlikely we see charges before the election. But unless the special master really slows things down, this is not the kind of investigation that takes months and years to put together. They really have most of the facts they need now. You know, they got enough facts to get in the door at Mar-a-Lago with probable cause. I think they would probably need to button down some additional witnesses. But then it's a case you can get your arms around. And so I don't see an indictment years off.

I see it months off, maybe even the end of this year. Still ahead on Morning Joe, a pardon from then President Trump may have saved Steve Bannon from federal charges, but not state prosecution. What the former Trump strategist is saying this morning about the imminent charges from the Manhattan district attorney's office, plus surveillance video shows a pair of fake Trump electors visiting a Georgia elections office, along with two tech consultants who supported 2020 fraud claims. It's raising new concerns about a data breach. We'll dig into that new reporting.

Also ahead, a January 6th rioter who was turned in by his ex-girlfriend after calling her a, quote, moron for not believing Donald Trump's lies about the 2020 election. He's been sentenced. We'll take a look at those new charges. And former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shares her thoughts on the ongoing House investigation into the January 6th attack. What she had to say about that and more. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Coming up on the bottom of the hour at the White House on a Wednesday morning, nearly two years after he was pardoned by then President Trump in a federal fraud case, Steve Bannon is expected to face a new criminal indictment, this time in New York. The Washington Post reported overnight the former Trump strategist

will surrender to New York state prosecutors tomorrow. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office would not confirm or comment on that reporting when asked by NBC News. But in a statement late last night, Bannon confirmed the Manhattan D.A.'s office has, quote, decided to pursue phony charges against me 60 days before the midterm election. He went on to write, this is nothing more than a partisan political weaponization of the criminal justice system. NBC News reported last year the DA's office had opened an investigation into Bannon's connection with a fundraising effort called We Build the Wall. Federal prosecutors allege Bannon pocketed $1 dollars in that scheme, but then he was pardoned by Trump in the case. Presidential pardons, though, only extend to federal cases and charges, not to state ones like the one we're talking about here in New York. was pulled off a yacht somewhere and brought in on these federal charges of pocketing a million

dollars in what he had pitched and others had pitched as an effort to raise money to build the wall. It was not that, according to federal prosecutors. He was pardoned by Donald Trump. But now the Manhattan D.A.'s office is bringing him in on a state charge. So how does this play out? How is it different than the federal charge? And what do you expect to see here? So this is a great opportunity by Manhattan D.A. to see justice served after Donald Trump swooped in and pardoned Steve Bannon before he ever went to trial in this case. I think it's very likely that this case will succeed if the evidence is there. And of course, it hasn't been tested in court, but the case got preempted by Donald Trump's pardon before. One thing that's really interesting in this case, Willie, is that you may remember that they tried to do this with Paul Manafort. Paul Manafort had been convicted

of fraud charges. Donald Trump pardoned him at the end of the administration. And then the Manhattan DA's office charged him again with similar the state version of those same crimes. And in that case, those charges were dismissed. An appellate court said they were blocked by double jeopardy under what New York's law is much more forgiving, more generous to defendants than most double jeopardy laws. But here the situation is different because Steve Bannon never went to trial. So he has not been put in jeopardy, unlike Paul Manafort, who was convicted at a jury trial. So I think for that reason, this is a clean charge. It will not be upended the way the Manafort charges were. And as long as the evidence supports it, I think this

case will go to trial and a jury will decide his fate. And the Manhattan DA's office picked up on this case pretty quickly after President Trump, former President Trump, pardoned Steve Bannon back on the federal charge. Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuaid. Thanks so much. Always good to hear from you. Mika. Also, newly obtained surveillance video from Georgia shows a fake elector escorting members of a tech firm into the Coffey County election office in January of 2021, moments before election data was breached. In the video, you can see the then chairwoman of the Coffey County GOP, Kathy Latham, in the blue-green shirt, holding open the door for members of Sullivan Strickler, a data security firm hired by Trump attorney Sidney Powell the day after the insurrection.

Additional video taken outside the county elections office shows Cyber Ninja CEO Doug Logan and cybersecurity consultant Jeff Lemberg also visiting that same office a few times later in January of 2021. This is all part of a criminal investigation into the breach of voter data. Latham is also under criminal investigation for posing as a fake elector, signing paperwork falsely claiming Trump won the election. NBC News has reached out to Latham for comment, but has yet to hear back. The data forensic firm referred NBC News to their lawyers and declined to comment. You know, Willie, I'm just I'm just going to say it's incredible. You look at all of these people terrible breaking all of these laws all over the country thinking that they're that they live in a a world that's not only a post-fact world but a post-law world and they they really

believed because donald trump always seemed to get away with breaking the law that they could just break the law. And now we're seeing him that actually they're all feeling gravity's pull, that this was not a vacation from history. This was not a vacation from from criminality. If you broke the law from our elections. Yeah. From well, from our elections process, from from any process that there are actually. And I think for for millions and millions of Americans who probably don't even like what Joe Biden's doing right now. This is a relief. This is a relief that actually in America, if you break the law, you still there are consequences. I know the Republican Party wants to defund the FBI. I know the Republican Party doesn't care if cops are beaten up on Capitol steps within an inch of their life. I know the Republican Party talks about riding in the

streets if they're the head of their party is actually held to the same legal standard of everybody else. But I think it's a relief for a lot of independents, a lot of swing voters, a lot of people who aren't a member of either tribe or a cult that my God, laws still matter in this country. And these people are getting rolled up by by authorities for going out of their way to breaking the law, whether it was a battering and abusing cops on on January the 6th, trying to beat them to death with with American flags or whether it's it's, you know, and it's not just criminal. It's also civil. If you if you lie about election workers, you're going to pay the consequences. Like there are actually guardrails in America's democracy. Even if Donald Trump tried to convince millions of Americans that there were not.

You're exactly right. And Donald Trump gave them, in their eyes, permission and license to go break the law, whether it was busting into the Capitol and beating up cops and going to look for Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence. They thought they were on a mission from Donald Trump. And the same goes for these local officials. We focus on Donald Trump leading this coup, rightly so. But there were people like this woman holding the door in Georgia. There were people in Arizona. There were people in Pennsylvania and Michigan who were actively working, sometimes elected officials actively working to help Donald Trump with his coup. And now, to your point, Joe, the woman holding the door, letting these people in to tamper with election machines

and equipment. She is a target of an investigation in the state of Georgia. There will be consequences for holding that door and trying to help Donald Trump pull off a coup. For more on this, let's bring in investigative reporter at The Washington Post, Emma Brown. Emma, thanks for being with us this morning. So let's talk about who that woman is there. She was the county chair for Republican Party in Georgia and why she was letting those people in that building. Sure. Yes. Her name is Kathy Latham. And as you said, she's she was at the time the county Republican chair. She was also one of the, unquote fake electors in Georgia. And, you know, she was holding the door. She went out and greeted this team and then led them inside. What her lawyer

told us is that she had nothing to do with authorizing or participating in any copying of sensitive or protected voter software. But she she was there and she did. You know, you can see on the video she led them in in a deposition for the that we can talk about in a minute. She she said she had been, you know, at the she recalled being there briefly that afternoon after teaching a full day of classes at the high school. This video shows that she was there shortly before noon. That's the time that we see her greeting them there. Right. And obviously, these are only allegations. We have video of her opening the door. What does the state have to prove, though, that she specifically was involved in this? Do they believe that they can make her an accessory to a possible crime here? Or is she just a person of interest

because she's on the video? Well, I think it's important to understand that this video surveillance actually came as a result of civil litigation. So five years ago, voters in Georgia and a nonprofit called the Coalition for Good Governance sued state officials in Georgia because they were concerned about the security of Georgia's voting system. And in recent months, they've issued a flurry of subpoenas and taken a bunch of depositions. And it's really because of those efforts that we know what we know about what happened in Coffey County. So they are continuing to pursue that as a civil matter because they are concerned that this breach, the copying of basically all the software components

and data that is used in the Dominion software across the state of Georgia creates a risk for future elections. So that continues. Only recently did this become a matter for criminal investigators. So now the Georgia Bureau of Investigation is looking into this matter. And Fannie Willis in Fulton County has also taken an interest as part of her much broader inquiry into Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election. Yeah. And again, just because you're on the video doesn't mean you're guilty. Certainly, though, does make those four people people of interest while an investigation. But when talking with legal experts about all the different challenges facing former President Donald Trump, a lot of them say, watch what comes out of Fulton County. Well, yeah, just watch. George, George is a real problem. I'll

tell you, the fake electors also a real problem, not just for Donald Trump, but for others involved. The Washington Post, Emma Brown. Thank you so much. Greatly appreciate it. Also, a January 6th rioter who was turned in by his ex after he called her a moron has been sentenced to nine months in federal prison. Not for calling her a moron. No. Though he should have never done that. But who is it? A DOJ complaint reveals Richard Machete of Pennsylvania was arrested in February after he sent his ex-girlfriend a text message calling her a moron for not believing former President Trump's lie that the 2020 election was stolen. Machete's ex then called authorities to report that Machete had participated in the January 6th riot. Machete's ex then called authorities to report that Machete had participated

in the January 6th riot. Machete admitted he went inside the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2021 and pleaded guilty to a felony count of obstruction of an official proceeding in May. Federal prosecutors said Machete personally confronted police and encouraged other rioters who were assaulting officers. My Lord. Yeah, Ryan, it really is remarkable. I mean, following your reporting, just following your reporting, following your Twitter feed, it is remarkable how the Justice Department, how the FBI is just continuing every single day to go after these people that that that that these rioters that got into the Capitol, that that were beating up and abusing police officers, battering cops and and trying to trying to stop a a constitutionally mandated action. It's just every single day they keep finding these people, charging these people and convicting these people.

Certainly the cost for rioting at the Capitol on January the 6th, continuing to have consequences for those who are engaged in the unlawful behavior. That's right. You know, we're very closely approaching 900 cases overall, people who've been arrested by the FBI. In connection with January 6th, we've seen over 350 guilty pleas. And I would caution that there's hundreds more of these cases to go because the FBI has the names of hundreds of additional people. And a lot of that has come from online sleuths who have not yet been arrested. If you go to the FBI's website, you'll find hundreds of folks on there who are alleged to have assaulted cops who still haven't been arrested. So it really is a pretty overwhelming investigation for the FBI and for

DOJ. They just had a new batch of assistant U.S. attorneys come in to help out with these cases. So I think that that could jumpstart this a little bit. But it's a very long process, you know, typically in the federal system, as we all know and have been made aware of in the past several years here, covering a number of federal investigations. This process can take a very long time. The resources are really an issue here. And that's why DOJ has been requesting in the new budget a lot more resources to go towards this. They need additional federal prosecutors because remember, they've gotten people from all over the country. A lot of U.S. attorneys offices have put up people, put up some of their federal

prosecutors to help out and pitch in in these cases. But it really is just pretty overwhelming. And, you know, it's not just charging these folks. You have to see these cases all the way through. They can take upwards of a year. So, you know, right now there's three folks on trial before a before a judge, a bench trial who were in that tunnel during some of the most violent acts that we saw on January 6th who are repressing their case to a judge. I think we'll get a verdict in that case next week. This just keeps continuing

to grind on. So it's one of those things where, you know, the wheels of justice can grind very slowly, but we're moving forward definitely here, Joe. NBC News justice reporter Ryan Riley, thank you very much for your reporting this morning. And coming up, the warning from a nuclear watchdog after touring that Russian-controlled power plant in Ukraine. Plus, why a band of fighters from Belarus is taking up arms in Ukraine. And Applebaum joins us with her cover story in the new issue of The Atlantic. Also ahead, we're joined by Britain's ambassador to the United States on the first full day in office for the new British prime minister. Morning Joe, we lost track of the time. The United Nations Nuclear Watchdog Agency is urging Russia and Ukraine to establish a nuclear safety and security protection zone around Europe's largest nuclear power plant.

It's in Ukraine. The agency says Russia's ongoing assault has caused damage around that plant, says there is an urgent need for immediate measures to prevent a nuclear accident. Inspectors say they found damage to a building which contained fresh nuclear fuel and solid radioactive waste. Joining us now, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander James DeVritas. He is MSNBC's chief international analyst. Also with us, staff writer at The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum. We'll get to her cover story for the magazine in just a moment. Good morning to you both. Admiral, I want to begin with you on Zaporizhia

and that nuclear plant. You're writing about that. You've been thinking about that, calling it a ticking time bomb. What is the real risk here and what is Putin's strategy in holding that and effectively threatening the West with it? The risk is very high. Look, I commanded a nuclear aircraft carrier task group. I slept on top of six nuclear reactors. I slept very well because we had safeguards in place. We knew what we were doing. We weren't in a combat zone. Here you have the chance of a meltdown at the very dark end of the spectrum or an artillery strike that takes out, for example, spent uranium can release radioactivity as well. So the risks, Willie, are very high. And the question of why is Putin doing this? I think, number one, he wants to scare the

Europeans. Number two, he wants to use this zone as kind of a safe harbor from which he can launch attacks, thinking probably correctly, the Ukrainians are not going to continuously bombard this area. And you're showing containers here of spent uranium. There are several hundred there. And then thirdly, Putin wants to get this plant off the Ukrainian electric grid. In normal times, it'll provide maybe 20 percent of the electricity for the country of Ukraine. So it's a threefer for him. And don't look for him to ease up anytime soon. So, Anne, you have one of the cover stories for The Atlantic special issue dedicated to the war in Ukraine. And your piece is entitled To Bring Change to Belarus. A band of fighters is

taking up arms in Ukraine. And you write in part, quote, gathered in a basement on a quiet tree-lined street. The Belarusians preparing to leave Warsaw to join the Ukrainian army look more like a bunch of computer programmers getting ready for a long car trip. Hope is tempered with realism. They are headed for the front line of one of the most brutal wars of the 21st century and bolstered by desperation, the feeling that other better roads to political change have disappeared. Some arrive in Warsaw on overnight buses from Belarus with no money and no plans other than to join the Ukrainian army.

They believe that if they can lean hard on the scales of history and help the Ukrainians win, then both Russia and its Belarusian satrap will be far weaker. They could pay a high price, not just with their time and effort, but with their lives. On June 26th, the commander of one of the Belarusian's battalion died during the battle for Lysychansk. Others have also been killed, wounded or captured.

But if they don't fight, they might pay another kind of price. If Ukraine loses and Russia is empowered, then Belarus will remain a dictatorship and they will never be able to go home. And I'll never forget. It was Petrosenko early in the war saying to us, as well as the foreign minister of Ukraine, that they are fighting for the safety of the world if people would just listen. Right. And we we had George Packer on yesterday talking about the green in the same issue, talking to that Green Beret from from Texas, who said this is pretty simple when you break it all down. These people are fighting for their freedom. They're fighting to not be slaves to Russia.

It's at the end of the day, though, it's not just the Ukrainians, is it? No, the meeting, the Belarusians, is it? No. Meeting the Belarusians first, I met them first on their way to Kiev when they were still in Warsaw, getting ready to go. And then I saw later, I went to Ukraine in July, and I saw some of them training. It's very moving. And they're fighting for another country, a foreign country. But they're doing so because they believe that defending Ukraine is an absolutely necessary step on the road to liberating their own country. And, you know, you can say that of several countries in the region. The war in Ukraine is a real hinge. It's a turning point. It's the reason why some countries will stay free, you know, or why some might fall again under

a dictatorial rule. Russia, Russia's imperial reach in the region. It's not just it's not just Russia. It's not just Ukraine. It reaches into Belarus. And they, you know, they threaten, you know, the state of politics everywhere in the whole region. Hey, Anne, it's Jonathan. First, I want to just have a little breaking news here. Just a short time ago, the Kremlin put out that Vladimir Putin will be meeting with China's Xi Jinping next week, their first meeting since the war began. So there's certainly still a close relationship between those two nations. But it's another alliance I wanted you to get you to weigh in on.

And that's how Europe has still remained banded together to support what we're seeing here in Kyiv. It's staring, though, a probably long and very cold winter. I know you spent a lot of time over there. What's your sense right now of the European resolve? We have seen some countries, including the United Kingdom, have changed leadership since this war began. But it seems like they're pledging to stay the course. Do you have any concerns that could eventually fade if energy prices go up, homes get cold, prices continue to rise? So the prices are rising, homes will get cold. Just so that Americans understand the way the gas distribution system in Europe works, it's not just that there will be high

prices this winter, there could be actual shortages. So there could be people or there could be factories that where the factories don't work and homes aren't heated. What I'm hearing now from the major capitals is that most of Europe is still dedicated to this cause precisely because of what we started out talking about, namely, that people understand that this war has long consequences and that losing it would put into under threat, not just Ukraine, not just Belarus, but perhaps Poland, perhaps the Baltic states in the longer run, even Germany. So people understand this as a hinge moment. I mean, that doesn't mean there won't be political protests.

There have been some already and that there won't be complicated politics around this. But as I'm speaking now, the majority are still pledging to continue supporting Ukraine and the sanctions on Russia. All right. The Atlantic Santa Apple bomb, as always, thank you so much. And thank you for coming to discuss your cover story and an important new special issue of The Atlantic. We greatly appreciate it. Admiral Stravita, let me ask you about that special relationship between China and Russia. So special that the Russians are having to get missiles from North Korea instead of China. How did that strike you that they had to go to North Korea of all countries by North Korean? I don't think so. Instead of China, what can you can you help us sort through this very complicated relationship between Russia and China right now? Yeah, let's let's face it. If your phone a friend arms dealer is Kim Jong Un,

you're probably shopping in the wrong arms bazaar. And that is not going to be a case for advancement for Putin's armies. Look, what's happening here, Joe, is President Xi wants to be supportive of Putin. He has a relationship with Putin. They are kind of special friends, as they both say. On the other hand, President Xi doesn't want to go the full Monty here. He doesn't want to provide high end weapons. He doesn't want to be that phone a friend arms dealer. And I think he's using Kim Jongun as a kind of a cat's paw. But the bottom line here is, and you'll see this as the decade unfolds, Putin is taking Russia down a path where it will be a very junior partner to this larger Chinese enterprise. The Chinese will take advantage of Russia again and again and again. I think Putin, who at times can be a smart tactician, is a terrible strategist.

Hence his failure in the attack on Ukraine and the path he's going down now with China, who is not going to bail him out ultimately. Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander James Tavridis, us thank you very much i wasn't sure if you got cut off there we appreciate your coming on this morning and still ahead a dire warning from several former defense officials they say political polarization is straining the foundations of our military we'll talk to one former defense secretary who signed that letter. Plus, new polling shows the growing influence abortion rights is having on voters ahead of the midterms. And it may decide a governor's race in one key state. Morning Joe is coming right back in two minutes.