Morning Joe - Morning Joe 9/7/23

Episode Date: September 7, 2023

Pence urges Americans to vote against Trump's populism

The truth is the Republican Party did not begin on a golden escalator in 2015. Long before that day, it was forged and defended and defined as the conservative party in America. And so it should ever be. Mike Pence gives some of his sharpest criticism yet of his former running mate, calling the future of the Republican Party a battle between conservatism and populism. We'll have more of his comments just ahead. Plus, what Donald Trump had to say about the possibility of taking the witness stand in his own defense in the classified documents case. And we'll have an update on Hunter Biden's legal troubles as the

special counsel appointed to his case is now seeking an indictment for the president's son. Also ahead, we're learning more about how a prisoner who is still on the run this morning was able to escape from a county prison in Pennsylvania. Okay, good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, September 7th. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire. Yep, right here.

And professor at Princeton University, Eddie Glaude Jr. NBC News National Affairs Analyst analyst John Heilman, Washington Bureau chief for USA Today, Susan Page, and former U.S. attorney and MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance. A lot to get to this morning, Joe. Yeah, a lot to get to. But let's start really quickly with what Mike Pence had to say, Willie. You know, he was talking about the need for conservatism. I was reading Jonah Goldberg last night in The Dispatch talking about how conservatism has always been sort of the bulwark to protect America

and other countries from radicalism. And Jonah brought up a great point, the fact that now you have so-called conservatives adopting the stand in the worldview of radicals and engaging and embracing and radicalism. There's there's no no protection against that radicalism because it's the conservatives who are supposed to be the counterbalance. And as Mike Pence said last night, you know, this is a tragedy for America, but also it's it's a tragedy for conservatism because, again, conservatism is supposed to be the rock. It's supposed to be the steadying force in the debate.

It's just it's just not anymore. That's it's become the radical corner. Yeah. And there's a distinction that you've made many times over the last few years between Trumpism and conservatism. And they've been sort of conflated and lumped together and say, well, conservatives like Donald Trump, well, there's nothing conservative. When you talk about policy, you talk about the debt he racked up and all that on that side, but also to lead the overturning of the federal government, for example, to to put into question our system and our peaceful transition of power. And Mike Pence is making plain an argument that would have been so obvious just a few years ago, but it has to be said out loud. The problem is, and the question is, is it a tree falling in the

conservative forest? Is everybody on board with Donald Trump? Is he going to continue to pull Mike Pence at three, four or five percent? It remains to be seen, Joe, I guess, if there is a place for a actual a real conservative, as you would define it, I think, in this Republican Party. Well, it's not just narrowly defined by American conservatism. We're just talking about conservatism in general. And again, you're talking about a force starting with Edmund Burke. That was a reaction to the French Revolution of the radicalism there, Eddie Glaude. Conservatism was about custom. It was about consistency. It was about, well, as Russell Kirk said in The Conservative Mind,

I think it was in the seventh and last edition. He said, conservatives look at the world and then they decide, do we need to be the party of progress or do we need to be the party of perseverance where we're pushing back against radical change? Whether that radical change might have been, you know, what is a radical thought or whether now it's the tech revolution that's completely turned our lives and our children's lives upside down. But a conservative is supposed to look at the world, Russell Kirk said, and ask the question, do we need to be the party of preserving or the party of progress? What does this moment, what does this reality call for? And instead of protecting custom and Constitution, you now have Republicans pushing a guy who said, if the Constitution gets in the way of me serving another four years,

we'll just terminate the Constitution. Well, that's about as radical as you get, isn't it? Well, absolutely, Joe. I think the story of republicanism or conservatism that we could trace back to Edmund Burke is a complex one. But I would also want to think that the way in which we think about its emergence in the United States, its development in the United States, I'm thinking about Pat Buchanan. I'm thinking about Newt Gingrich. I'm thinking about how they in some way set the stage for Trumpism. And how do we tell that story? There's an element of American conservatism in its history that actually gives rise to Trumpism, even though it's a caricature of sorts.

So I think you're absolutely right, Joe. But we have to then locate it in our specific history, in our particular time, and tell a thick story about how this came to be. Well, you're right. And, Eddie, you're so right. It is a complex story. But it is a complex. We always talk about two things being true at the same time. Sometimes protecting custom protects institutions that are evil. Sometimes it holds up institutions that are that are positive, that are good, that are life affirming, that grow the society. Let's let's listen to Mike Pence continue to talk on the topic.

A populist movement is rising in the Republican Party. The growing faction would substitute our faith in limited government and traditional values with an agenda stitched together by little else than personal grievances and performative outrage. A leading candidate for the Republican nomination last year called for the, quote, termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution, close quote. While his imitators in this primary have demonstrated a willingness to brandish government power to impose their will on opponents. And here we are, of course, he's talking about Donald Trump. He said, let's terminate the Constitution. But John Heilman, how I mean, you just talk about the height of irony.

Republicans that I grew up with, conservatives that I grew up with said, oh, liberals are concerned about their feelings. They they create their own realities. Well, that's where we are now. Right. What I found so interesting is when Mika and I were up in Maine in 2020, you actually saw boats with flags that said, I won't say it exactly what it said, but it said, F your feelings. Trump 2020. Like they were the tough guys. Forget your feelings. It doesn't matter what you think. Trump's going to win 2020. So Trump loses. And what do we hear? You know what? His feelings just give him some time to get used to this new reality. He's not really ready to accept the fact that he lost. Let's just be patient. And an incredible thing happened. These so-called conservatives were suddenly the people who wanted us to believe their reality, who wanted us to believe their feelings, their feelings. And Jonah Goldberg goes into this. Their feelings have become their reality. And suddenly, again, custom,

constitution, American institutions that have sustained us, whether you're talking about the Justice Department or the United States military or America's colleges and universities, the greatest in the world by far, suddenly they all come under attack. And as Jonas said, anything that doesn't support the continued power grab by Trump and Trumpists is suspect and comes under attack. That's not conservatism. That's radicalism. And it's why we are fighting to preserve American democracy right now. Right. So just just in case you're not clear that F

your feelings, that doesn't mean forget. Right. That's a dead. We're clear. Should I say what Mike said? It's too on the fly. It's too early for that. 609 AM, I'm not supposed to say that. We had a day like that a decade ago. It didn't go well. Didn't go well. You know, seven seconds to land on that. Joe, you know, yes, I mean, all of that's true.

And, of course, it's been a long time since the Republican Party was a conservative party, in my view, properly understood in the Burkean sense of conservative, temperamentally conservative, constitutional conservatives, like the kind of definition of the kind of conservatism that you were attracted to when you first joined the movement and joined the party. You know, and of course, it is the version of it that Joe is talking about, you're talking about is not just radicalism, it's cultism, right? It's cult of personality when it comes to Donald Trump. But, you know, you see it now, it has escaped.

Even, you know, Trump is a very big figure in the party, and obviously he's the dominant figure in the party, but it's long beyond Donald Trump now. You know, you look at up in the state of Wisconsin, we've talked on this program a lot since April when this liberal justice whose last name I could barely pronounce in Wisconsin got elected to everyone's surprise to the Supreme Court in Wisconsin.

The Republicans in Wisconsin are now trying to invalidate that woman's election. She hasn't even heard a case yet, and they're just trying to throw it out. They're trying to get her impeached, basically, five months, four months after she got elected because she threatens the power of Republicans over the Wisconsin legislature. No respect whatsoever for the will of the people. No respect for a justly held vote for the base on which this woman got elected to Wisconsin Supreme Court. What's Mike Pence going to say about that? Is Mike Pence going to stand up and say, well, of course, as conservatives, we respect the will of the people.

We respect the outcome of elections. Or is he going to do what I think everyone in the Republican Party is going to say as well? Wisconsin Republicans want to throw her out. Yeah, I guess we got to be for that because Wisconsin is an important swing state in this election. So we're not going to take a stand for constitutional principles or for conservatism. We're going to be for that. And, you know, we've seen it on the United States Supreme Court, too, when it comes to Roe v. Wade. Nothing conservative about throwing away a 50 year precedent set in stone. So the problem is that as big as important as it is to talk about

Trump and the cult of personality that drives the radicalism on the presidential level, it's that at every, in every nook and cranny of the party across the country, at every level, you have lost a sense in the Republican party of what the roots of conservatism were that held the party together throughout the modern era until this century, I would say. Yeah. Well, again, a complete disconnect from reality. Again, conservatives, constitutionally, temperamentally, conservatives are supposed to, if you look at Burke or Russell Kerr, they're supposed to look at reality as it is, reality it is and adapt to that and of course so far the party's so far from that uh but this is beyond let me just say this beyond radicalism jonah's right it is

radicalism willie but we can say without being hyperbolic in the least that this is anti-democratic. Through and through, you heard what John Heilman just said about what they're doing in Wisconsin, trying to impeach a judge that won a landslide election just because in Tennessee, kicking out two black members of the legislature that were elected because they protested. In Ohio, at the last second, changing the rules of a state referendum because they knew they were going to lose.

Of course, they failed at changing those rules. The people were still able to do something in Washington, D.C. Why is Donald Trump going to trial next March? Because he set up a scheme to put in place fraudulent electors. And what would that do? That would take away the votes of millions and millions of people who already had actual constitutional electors in Washington, D.C., to have their votes counted. And of course, we can go to Georgia. You know, Donald Trump saying basically to the secretary of state, steal the election, throw out 11,000 votes, find one more than I need to win. Again, this is not just conservatism

versus radicalism. This is democracy versus anti-democracy. I don't think we've had as clear a cut difference between the parties. Well, certainly not in my lifetime. And I would suggest we'd probably have to go back to the Civil War to find two parties so at odds as these two parties right now, because one literally wants to end the Democratic experiment. If you look at the person who's running, who has said again, as Mike Pence said, his vice president, he wants to terminate the Constitution if the Constitution stands in the way of him being the president of the United States. And the argument they're making or implicitly, I guess, is that democracy has not yielded the results we wanted.

Donald Trump didn't win. We didn't get what we wanted on abortion in certain places in these referendums. So we're going to burn the thing down, get rid of democracy so we can change the system and get the outcomes we want. I would add to that list the effort at the state level in Georgia to impeach, effectively, Fannie Willis, the Fulton County D.A. Notably, it was the Republican governor, Brian Kemp, who stepped in quickly and said, yeah, that's not happening. But, John, if you look at the field of Republican presidential candidates right now, Donald Trump is head and shoulders above

everyone. But the closest opponents are cheap imitations of Donald Trump. So in other words, the people who are finding any traction at all nationally, Vivek Ramaswamy, Ron DeSantis, to a lesser degree, are doing an impersonation of Donald Trump. I mean, you had Ron DeSantis yesterday saying, yes, I would consider pardons and commutations for the January 6th people who are now being put in jail because he thinks that's what Trump's voters, I guess, want to hear. Or maybe he does believe that. But this is what's working for the moment. Yeah. And that was the other key part of what Pence said. It wasn't just about Trump. It was those trying to be Trump who were trying to be echoes of Trump, who were saying they will power

the same way Trump has done. And we are seeing on the state level, I'll add Tennessee, the Tennessee three, that effort to throw them out another way that Republicans have tried to overturn the will of the people in order to get what they want. And we're seeing that play out in this GOP primary stage where Trump is 40 to 50 points up on everyone else. And the other candidates, as you say, who have had even moments of success are those who are doing Trump impersonations. And Mike Pence, Mike Pence is right. History will regard Mike Pence is right. In this moment, it doesn't matter. Mike Pence is losing and losing badly. And the argument he's making, again, will be will be validated by history. Let us all hope. But right now, that is a losing argument in the Republican Party? You know, Mika, since 1992, the Republican Party has won the popular vote in one presidential election. Since 1992, the Republican Party has lost the popular vote in seven of the eight presidential elections since then.

There are dramatic demographic changes that are happening. We have known for over a generation that there would come a time when this would cease to be a majority white country. And there is no doubt that much of this is is is a Republican Party that is saying we're just going to lose elections from now on. So let's just say the hell with elections. Let's just say the hell with democracy because we're going to keep losing. Again, they've lost a popular vote seven out of eight times since 1992. So I guess they're just thinking instead of us changing, instead of us figuring out how to update an 1849 abortion ban in Wisconsin, let's just say the hell to the voters and impeach the judge that won a landslide election there. They've got it backwards. They're going to lose.

But make no mistake, this is about power and nothing but power. They're losing it. They know they're losing it. And they're willing to throw the American experiment down the drain to save their power. Yeah. They've caused a lot of damage in the way, which makes one of our top stories this morning about the one woman who has taken on Donald Trump for years now and keeps on winning even more impressive. A judge has ruled Donald Trump defamed writer E. Jean Carroll when he was president in 2019. the lawsuit in response to the comments the former president made shortly after she came forward with her allegation that he raped her in a New York City department store. This case is separate from the lawsuit Carol won back in May when a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

That defamation award stems from statements Trump made on Truth Social last year, calling Carroll a, quote, con job. A federal judge has now decided those comments and the ones mentioned in the second lawsuit are, quote, substantially the same. So there's no need to argue that in court again. As a result, the case will only focus on how much money in damages Trump should pay Carroll. The trial is set to begin in January. Trump has already been ordered to pay Carroll five million dollars for the first lawsuit, but he is appealing the verdict. Joyce, what does this tell you? This is one of, I don't know, five, six legal cases against the president. But E. Jean Carroll, man, she's she's not she's not stopping anytime soon.

No, she's been tenacious in pursuing this case. And of course, it's different from the criminal prosecutions. No one goes to prison at the end of this case. Trump has been ordered to pay five million dollars in the first lawsuit. That was actually the second lawsuit Carroll filed. It was about comments that he made after he left the presidency. This case in January, when it goes to trial, Carroll's lawyers have a very different opportunity when it comes to arguing for damages. They're entitled to

ask that the damages punish Trump, but also that they be large enough to prevent him from continuing to defame her. Mika, I know that you'll recall that the day after this first jury verdict against Trump, he went back out on national television and repeated the defamation of Carroll. So her lawyers can ask for a significantly larger amount than five million dollars. That's not something that the former president looks forward to. In fact, we know in many ways these sorts of monetary losses are personally very damaging to him and his pride. So yet another venue of attack against Trump coming early next year. So Susan Page, E. Jean Carroll and her attorney, Robbie Kaplan, in particular, have been tenacious on this. And there's this idea that Donald Trump just gets away with everything, always has, always will.

And what they're saying in this case, at least, is no, that's actually not true. And Donald Trump, who thinks he lives and operates with impunity, they're just saying, if you want to keep doing this, we can keep doing this. We'll take another five million dollars from you if you want to keep defaming us publicly. Let's do it again. You know, what's remarkable, big defeat for Donald Trump on this. No question about, according to the judge, about whether he defamed her. That's that's determined. The other remarkable thing is that in the panoply of all the legal challenges that Donald Trump has, the fact that he is likely to be ordered to pay millions and millions of dollars more to her is not his biggest problem. In some ways, when you look at the cases that are going to be coming up in the next year or two, this is the smallest problem he has. So that is a sign of what remarkable terrain we are in here. And here's the other question.

If the damages are intended to prevent Donald Trump from continuing to defame her and perhaps others, is there much of a possibility that it will work? I'll leave that to you. So you had a trial. Will you testify in your own defense? Oh, yes, absolutely. You'll take the stand. That I look forward to.

I think that obstruction charge is going to get to trial, Mr. President. I'll testify. And they ask you on the stand, did you order anyone to move boxes? How will you answer? I'm not answering that question for you, but I'm totally covered under the law. If you read the Presidential Records Act.

Just read it. You take a look at it. I'm totally covered under the law. It's a civil act. It's civil. Now, Biden had no civil act. The things he did are criminal. But he doesn't have a deranged person.

Seriously, give me a break. Donald Trump lying. How could you sit there and listen to that? He's lying on so many levels. It's so boring. First of all, he will never testify. He'll say in two weeks, I am going to testify. In two weeks.

I'm totally covered. I am going to put out my full Georgia report in two weeks. I'm going to be a rocket ship at Mar-a-Lago and fly to the moon. Lies. All lies. First of all, Joyce, let's just say it right here. Let's

just say it right here. By the way, I keep hearing like people banging trash cans. It's me. It's always Heilman. He's kicking stuff. Are the Astros in 30 Rock? Does that mean I'm supposed to throw a fastball? Or am I supposed to throw an all-speed pitch to George? I kicked a thing. Heilman's got a twitchy leg, Joe, for many reasons.

He's literally got restless leg syndrome. That's correct. Okay. Tighten it up. It sounded like every Astros game a couple of years ago. By the way, did they take those trash cans on the road? I'm just I'm just curious how they did that as much as they did. Anyway, Joyce, Joyce, we all know, first of all, Donald Trump lying. It's not covered by anything like obstructing justice is not covered by anything. But secondly, explain why no lawyer will ever let Donald Trump testify under oath and why Donald Trump will never let his lawyer have him testify under oath.

Donald Trump is not capable of taking the witness stand and telling the truth. He's not capable of following any instructions he's given about what he can and can't testify to. And this clip, Joe, it's a great example of that because Trump would, for instance, very likely be prohibited from talking about what he claims is the Civil Presidential Records Act that protects him at trial. Prosecutors would file a motion to exclude that because it's not true and it's not relevant. But Trump would likely be bombastic on the witness stand, saying things that would get him into deeper trouble. It would essentially be malpractice for a lawyer to let him testify under oath. Okay, Joyce, can you tell me about Georgia yesterday and exactly what happened with Chesborough and Sidney Powell being denied their request? Yeah, this is a preview of how confusing

a trial with 19 defendants can get, Joe. But the most important takeaways from yesterday are this young judge who some people had been skeptical of is very firmly in command of his courtroom. He made a quick decision from the from the bench, argued as he had to that the two defendants who asked for speedy trials will get them. Those two will go to trial in October. But Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesbrough will be tried together. They will not get the separate trials that they asked for. The fate of the remaining 17 defendants isn't entirely clear, but it sounded like the judge was considering very seriously trying them together in one group. And that's in large part because of this forceful argument that prosecutors make that no matter how many separate trials are held in the Georgia matter,

in each one, prosecutors have to prove not just the limited number of overt acts that an individual defendant was involved in, but the entire RICO conspiracy that they've charged. Prosecutors say that'll take some four months. It'll involve 150 witnesses. And so they took it straight to the judge and they just said that the issue, your honor, is how many times do you want to have to retry this same case? Sounds to me like the judge will do it in two or at most three tranches. So, Joyce, let's talk about what the judge said about the actual process of the trial. Judge McAfee expressing some skepticism, as you and others have, that all these defendants could be tried together and in a

speedy way. Judge McAfee said, quote, it just seems a bit unrealistic to think we can handle all 19 in 40-something days. That's my initial reaction. End quote. The prosecutors told the court that a trial for all 19 defendants would include 150 witnesses and last about four months. He's going to come to a decision, he says, sometime next week. How do you see this playing out from here, Joyce? So there are a lot of moving parts here, but his assessment is a very pragmatic one. He was simply saying that in the period of time between today or yesterday and late October, when the first two defendants are scheduled to go to trial, he couldn't put all of the defendants into that courtroom so quickly and even decide all of the

pretrial motions that they would file. There would likely be a flurry of motions to sever, other motions to limit evidence. And just as a practical matter, that can't happen. In fact, it's a little bit surprising that Fannie Willis continues to insist that all 19 be tried this quickly, because if there were convictions, they would be very vulnerable on appeal to claims that the defendants didn't get the due process that they were entitled to, that they were forced to rush to trial very quickly. So that, I think, is the important part of what goes on here. The judge is making good decisions early on designed to protect the ultimate results of any trial here. So, Susan Page, let's talk about the politics of Georgia, which is going to be perhaps the closest state on the map next November.

You know, if Joyce's analysis is correct and this trial doesn't come to be, at least the Trump portion of it, you know, we will be deprived, voters will be deprived of seeing him sitting in a courtroom day after day during this trial. But yet it's still going to shadow the race there. And it's also an interesting state because the Republican establishment, including the governor, have stood up against him. How do you see that playing out there in the Peach State? Who would have thought Georgia might be the key state? I mean, if we're down to maybe four really crucial swing states, Georgia is going to be one of them next year.

And it's been interesting because if the Republican Party, the traditional Republican Party, has been on the run most places in this country, Georgia has been different because of the governor and the other officials who stood up to the pressure from Donald Trump to change the results of the election. I agree with you, though. I would I would love to see court hearings on television. I think they're so interesting. They're so informative. They're so educational. It's like C-SPAN for the judicial system. I'm all for it. And I would just, you know, Joyce, who knows more about the law than I do, of course, says Trump will not testify. Let me vote in favor of Trump testifying because that is something I would really love to see. That would be a blast. Well, former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance, thank you so much. You're going to hear more about this. Joyce and her sisters-in-law, best podcast in law in the business.

They talk actually about the Georgia case. So make sure to download Sisters-in-Law. Thank you so much for being with us, Joyce. And Jonathan Lemire, you weren't born, I don't think, when Secretariat won the Kentucky Derby. Nope. You didn't realize that Secretariat started slow. And people are like, oh, come on, it's not going to happen. 31 links.

But what have I been telling you? What have I been telling you? They're undefeated in September. Undefeated in September. Here comes Secretariat. Take it away. Tell us what happens. You know, because right now we're not even looking like Sham

who placed in the Kentucky Derby. We're looking like the pace horse who was like eating oats in the midfield at Churchill Downs. And the Yankees are about to zoom right past the Red Sox, aren't they, Jonathan? Yeah, the Red Sox at this point look like one of those horses that goes out back after the race. Never hear from them again. But here's the real issue. Here's the real issue. Here's the real issue. The New York post puts it on their back

page it notes that on august 28th that's before the yankees began their undefeated september the yankees were 11 games out of the playoffs that is now just six and a half they are now in barely more than a week's time, they have shaved off nearly five games. You can hear them coming on the outside rail, Joe. They're thundering down the rail. Undefeated in September. Likely undefeated in October as well. Okay.

All right. Coming up. Willie. Willie. Willie. I told you this first. I did. I told you this first, Willie. They are going to make the wild card, and then they're going to win, what, their 28th World Series?

Yeah. Yeah. You know, what's great about this, and I know you'll appreciate this, as usual, the Yankees doing it from the ground up, through the farm system. They're not paying some big star a whole bunch of money. Jason Dominguez, Austin Wells, all these guys coming up, just like Jeter, Rivera, Bernie Williams, all the guys, Posada before them. Dominguez, El Marciano,

the Martian, because he plays like he's from another planet, hit his first home run at Yankee Stadium last night. He hit a couple on the road prior to this. And look at that swing. Look at Judge. Wow. So if not this year, guys, the future is bright.

I know how excited you are. You know what? You know what they say, Willie? The future is now. Now, here's the difference between where the Yankees are right now and where the Red Sox are. I mean, the Yankees have a guy that they call the Martian because it looks like he comes from another planet, as you said.

The Red Sox, we call all our guys on our team the JVers. You don't have to figure out why we call them the JVers. It's looking a little rough. By the way, Heilman yesterday, while I go on this Falknerian stream of consciousness, which we really don't know where it's going. Where are we going next? Go back to bear. It's a bear, baby.

We talked about the bear yesterday. And I just want to say on the air again today, second season, episodes five, six, and seven may be the three greatest back-to-back-to-back episodes in the history of television. No, baby, I told you seven. I saw seven. I saw Forks, which, by the way, Forks, mind-blowing.

I thought that Five was mind-blowing with the ending and one of my favorite songs of all time, but John Heilman, holy moly. Like, Forks, Five, Six, six and seven incredible episodes in the bear you know it'd be good if uh if morning joe here's a the the dow of uh the bear is every second counts right every second counts this show this show is not this show has never kind of adopted has never been really focused on the opposite every four hours counts

look i you know joe joe texted me joe it was good to see uh after joe had done his brilliant interview with jamie lee curtis i was like well wow joe's amazing joe's obviously watched the whole of season two of the bear i thought because the interview was so good with jamie lee curtis who's uh on in two plays the brazado uh matriarch uh in two episodes of the bear this season and i thought well joe must be a huge fan then he got called me the other day i realized he had seen her episodes but not seen the whole season right we're watching i said well you gotta you gotta watch this you gotta watch so he went and watched episode seven forks which is the episode which richie uh played brilliantly by back rack comes

into his own and one of the most powerful, life-affirming episodes in the whole arc of the series, which is brilliant. And Joe's was, I said, I texted him, he said, these are the three best Back to Back episodes of scripted television ever. I said, are you watching with Mika? He said,

um, he's in trouble. Don't tell her that I skipped it. Great. Don't tell her but i skipped it right don't tell her okay so so what am i gonna do uh yeah you know joe i didn't say that first of all but but secondly i've been very disciplined very disciplined uh mika about about all of us i wanted to watch them all like jack scarborough we all watch an episode or two together and then the next morning we come down to breakfast and jack we're like do you want to watch episode three jack goes i watched all two seasons last night incredible so so watch forks watch forks make it because i'm moving forward to eight i mean i we we got to get to the end of

this thing you gotta get it with you okay with, we know. No, you're lying. But you know, I'm not. You got to get the works out of the way, though, and go. You know, Joe mentioned that your fifth episode ends with can't hardly wait by the replacements. That's what he's telling you. He can't hardly wait either. You know, you can't hardly wait to move on. The criticism the president is getting that he's too old to have a second term? I think the president should embrace his age, his experience, what he has, the knowledge that he brings to the job. Actually, the leader on the other side is not much younger. Well, you know, I don't like to use his name, but you know who I mean.

He's not that much younger. So I don't think age use his name, but you know who I mean. He's not that much younger. So I don't think age is a relative thing. It is. And I think this president, our country is very well served by his leadership. Again, his experience, his knowledge. And it counts for a lot. That, of course, is Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi on Morning Joe back in July, encouraging President Biden to embrace his age. New reporting in Politico magazine details how the former House speaker may be prepared to take her own advice. Jonathan Martin has a deep dive out this morning looking into why Nancy Pelosi might run again. And senior political columnist for Politico, Jonathan Martin, joins us now. J. Mark, good morning. So let's read a little from your piece out this morning in Politico magazine.

You write this quote. Nancy Pelosi is a towering figure, perhaps the most consequential speaker to ever wield the gavel of the House and certainly the most powerful elected woman in American history. octogenarian counterparts in the Oval Office and Senate leadership suite are visibly hobbled by age. The 83-year-old San Franciscan, older than both Joe Biden and Senator Mitch McConnell, seemingly defies the march of time. Now, having relinquished her leadership role in Washington, the question is if she will do the same with her House seat at a time when California's clout in the Capitol is diminished. Her party is led by Northeasterners in the White House and both chambers of Congress. And San Francisco is facing acute, if not as dire as portrayed, challenges in the aftermath of the pandemic. So, Jonathan, you spent a bunch of time with the former speaker of the House. Did you come away thinking she's going to hang in for a couple more terms? I don't know about a couple more terms, Willie, but I think she's really struggling

with whether or not to hang it up, in part because of the challenges that San Francisco is facing right now. And there's few people, frankly, in the history of the U.S. Congress who were better positioned to work the levers of federal, state, local government to help a district than she is.

Well, there's also the issue of Senator Feinstein. And this was probably the tensest part of our conversation. I spent most of a 12-hour day riding around with the former speaker throughout San Francisco. And it got pretty tense talking about Senator Feinstein and obviously her condition, which is pretty serious. And Pelosi, Willie, has been much more personally involved than is publicly known in making the case that Feinstein should be able to decide on her own what to do. And obviously Feinstein wants to stay in office but this is a factor because san francisco will be looking at the prospect of really in about five six years time losing uh barbara boxer diane feinstein and

speaker nancy pelosi that's a lot of clout for one city and a real time of need to lose in its federal delegation and then lastly uh this is personal for her. Well, because obviously her husband did suffer an attack. I saw him out there. He looks a lot better now, but she has lived her city's disorder in a very personal way. It showed up on her doorstep quite literally. So there's that factor too. And then the last thing I'll mention, her daughter, Christine, who was widely seen as a potential heir to that seat, that's also a factor as well. So there's a lot going on for her personally and professionally with this choice. Jonathan, I understand the political reality that you've just described, the practical implications of what's happening

with San Francisco. But what about the generational tension that we're seeing in the Democratic Party right now? What does it mean for the former speaker to be thinking about this in this moment where we see and hear young people clamoring for a younger generation of leaders in the Democratic Party and for the nation broadly? Well, look, there's no question about it that there is a long line of people in that city who are eager to stake their claim to her seat.

She's had the seat since 1987. And yet there's sort of people who are eager to make a move. challenge for people like Pelosi and Biden is that for all of their service, a lot of Americans, especially those under 30, they just want to see somebody who is closer to their own age, who understands their perspective more on the country, on the world. And that obviously is something that Pelosi has to deal with. I mean, she recognizes this. She comes from a city that is known for its cultural churn, for its sort of challenging of the status quo. And so I think she recognizes that. But look, for a lot of these members, as Joe knows, it's darn hard to walk away. You know, Jonathan, Susan Page here, congratulations on getting an actual answer to the question about

whether she wants to be ambassador to Italy. I've been speculating about that for years. Maybe I'll stop because you got a flat denial from Paul Pelosi. And I assume that is the last word on that. I'm wondering, though, her sensitivity about Dianne Feinstein's future when Dianne Feinstein, the senator, is clearly in such clearly such serious health decline. Is there some other reason that she wants to make sure that Feinstein stays in office till the end of her term? Is she trying to engineer, for instance, who might be in a position to replace her? Susan, that's a very good question. And Ruth, I should say, plug here, a very nice book about Speaker Pelosi as well that really chronicles her rise. Yes, look, part of Pelosi's motivation here when it comes to Feinstein is, yes, the appearance of pushing a prominent woman out of the Senate,

but it also owes to the succession issues in the Senate, namely the fact that Pelosi wants Adam Schiff to succeed Dianne Feinstein. Schiff, of course, went for closest allies and lieutenants in the House. And Pelosi knows that if Feinstein has to resign, that Gavin Newsom has pledged publicly to appoint a black woman. And that, of course, would complicate Adam Schiff's ascent to the U.S. Senate.

So there is some more California sort of dominoes following there as well, yeah. Yeah, you know, Jonathan, I just I always am so appreciative whenever you're around 30A or you see any articles on 30A in northwest Florida. You always send the articles to me or the pictures to me because that is literally my neck of the woods. And, you know, I grew up there and would go down there in the late 70s and early 80s before it grew up. And the most beautiful area in the world. I heard, and you ought to look for this Instagram reel, somebody took pictures, a drone over 30A, over those beautiful line of trees and they had Jimmy Buffett singing, a pirate turns 40 and I'm telling you, the guy is already the patron saint of 30A and the stretch all along the Gulf Coast.

The white beaches. It really is incredible. The white beaches. Yeah. Yeah. Just incredible. It really is incredible. The White Beaches. Yeah. Yeah. Just incredible. It's a gorgeous place. Yeah. All right.

Thank you so much for being with us, Jonathan. Greatly appreciate it. The new piece is online for Politico. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he has no plans to retire early following two apparent

medical episodes. Taking questions from reporters yesterday, the 81-year-old Republican vowed to finish out his term. We've had all these evaluations. What have doctors said is the precise medical reason for those two freeze-ups? What Dr. Monahan's report addressed was concerns people might have that some things that happened to me did happen to me. They didn't. And really, I have nothing to add to that. I think you pretty well covered the subject. What do you say to those who are calling on you to step down? Do you have any plans to retire anytime soon?

I have no announcements to make on that subject. What do you say to those who are calling on you to step down? I'm going to finish my term as leader, and I'm going to finish my Senate term. So, John Hahnemann, we should note, the only Republicans publicly suggesting that McConnell might not be fit for office are those who don't like him very much, including Senator Rand Paul, fellow Kentuckian Josh Hawley. Most GOP members to cameras are saying we still believe that Leader McConnell can do the job. Behind the scenes, there are more questions and doubts raised. And we have seen these two very high profile freeze ups here. What does this mean, though, for the Republican Party? Because this is this

is not a storyline that's going to go away. And there are going to be questions about whether McConnell can keep his caucus in check on things like Ukraine and being a bulwark to MAGA and the forces that are pushing McCarthy towards a shutdown, impeachment and beyond. Well, you know, John, you're right. The key word there is publicly. When you talk about what Republican senators are saying publicly versus privately, it's the same thing that's true with Dianne Feinstein. Frankly, you know, there's a there's a private discussion, a public discussion. You know, no one wants to

get crosswise with Mitch McConnell. People have learned at their peril what happens if you do that. He's as it's still even in his, I would say, frayed condition right now, not in full power, still someone who exercises enormous power of the chamber. And people, as I say, have learned what is what happens if you get on the wrong side of him. This question, though, of who's going to lead the party going forward is the talk in the Senate side. It's the talk in the Republican cloakroom. And it is the case that McConnell, as we see in this fight with the House side over whether there's going to be funding for Ukraine, whether that could lead to a government shutdown if Republicans on the House go in the opposite direction of where McConnell wants it to go, central to Republican prospects in a lot of ways because of that. Their politics,

be they're central to political prospects in 2024. So McConnell is not just important in the party, but important across the board politically with what happens in this next election. You know, Eddie Glaude, it seems to me there is a difference between where Mitch McConnell is right now and where Dianne Feinstein is. Dianne Feinstein, I think her daughter has her power of attorney. And Dianne Feinstein obviously struggling day in and day out to figure out where she is. Mitch McConnell fell. He hit his head. He had a bad concussion. And, you know, he's he's having a hard time getting past that.

But he does seem to be coherent and cogent most of the time. He's had two episodes, though. And, you know, doctor says that happens. Yeah. I think there's a difference between the two. But I also think the broader question of the age of the leadership of the country, I think that needs to be addressed at some point directly. It seems to me we could talk about what I mean by that. But I think there is a kind of clamoring for where are we going? What will be the next phase of leadership

for the nation at large? Okay, John Heilman, Susan Page, thank you both very much for being on this morning.