Morning Joe - Morning Joe 9/9/22

Episode Date: September 9, 2022

Queen Elizabeth II, Britain’s longest serving monarch, has died

The London, England, on September 12, 2001, the day after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, as Her Majesty the Queen broke a 600-year tradition in order to stand with the United States, requesting for the first time the Star-Spangled Banner be played outside Buckingham Palace. As we approach the 21st anniversary of 9-11 this Sunday, it is America now standing with the British Commonwealth as it mourns the loss of its longest reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. This morning, we will remember her legacy and discuss the future of the British monarchy under the reign of King Charles III. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Friday, September 9th. Along

with Joe, Willie and me, we have U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kaye, presidential historian and Rogers chair in the American presidency at Vanderbilt University, John Meacham, and the host of Way Too Early, White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire is with us. The other big stories we're following this morning, and there are many. The Justice Department appeals the decision to grant a special master in the investigation into Donald Trump's handling of classified documents. And former Trump adviser Steve Bannon indicted in New York City as he turned himself in on money laundering and conspiracy charges. We'll explain why this indictment may also have the former president

worried. Yeah, I mean, he was running around yelling things, shouting, I don't know, power to the people or something like, you know, the man's going down. I don't know what he was yelling. It really doesn't matter. But he really does know. And he mourns, I think, really for an America long past, an America where grifters like him and the Trump administration could get away with committing crimes and then be pardoned. And I guess those days are passing. I will say, though, yesterday, it's very interesting. We were talking about Steve Bannon's case. I had asked Tom, what I said, well, wait a second. Now, if you're stealing like a couple million dollars from people because you're lying about building a wall. Right. And you don't build a wall. Well, what would you say about somebody who? Oh, I don't know. Raised hundreds of millions of dollars lying to people, telling them that you were going to use this, that their

money for stop the steal. Now, this is I talk about Jim and Tammy Faye Baker a good bit. This is ripped straight out of the pages of the PTL club where you lie to people and you get them to contribute to something that means a lot to them. And it ends up you don't use the money for those purposes. Bannon now is in handcuffs because of that. Yesterday, I asked the question, well, wait a second, I don't understand. Trump did it, but on a much larger scale. Is this another example of where the Justice Department is just going to look the other way? The answer, apparently, no. Well, the January 6th Select Committee member put the number at $250 million raised for that

stop the steal effort. It's the model of build the trust, build the loyalty of your followers. And then the hustle begins to create a lie that says the election was stolen and say, I need you now. I appreciate your loyalty. I need you now. $250 million. Where did that money go? Where is that money? Who raised it? And that'll be one of the questions that will be in this definitive report from the select committee. But to your point, if you take a million bucks, as Steve Bannon is accused of doing this build the wall thing, what on January the 6th and the big lie and the big lie. But the question we have here for is who won the over and under yesterday on the band and shirts? It was two and a half. OK, I've got it. It looks like maybe three. There's the collared shirt. And then I can't tell if there's one under shirt or two. He does favor the layered look, as you know. I mean, you know what we're going to call this? This is a push,

a push, because you know what he has? It appears he has two and a half shirts on. That was what we suspect, two and a half shirts. And let's just be honest, devastatingly handsome, even in a moment of legal peril. Shock. He brings a game. I'm Paul Newman, 1958. It's really unbelievable. So so really quickly, before we get on to the news that I would cover for four hours today, but I understand, which is the queen. We have lots to understand. We have a lot more than that. But really quickly, though, seriously, talk about the fact that that Bannon is now in cuffs shouting power to the people or whatever hippie stuff he's shouting. And you have Donald Trump sitting there going, wait a second. If they've got him in cuffs for stealing one million dollars and lying to people about raising

it, I lied and got two hundred and fifty million dollars or whatever the amount is from people for this stop the steal scam. And by the way, I'm not even talking about the big lie itself. I'm talking about this is I give me this money. I will use this money to fight back against the quote steal. And he didn't use the money for legal defense. He didn't use the money for anything. He said he was using the money on the way in the court yesterday, shouted they'd have to kill me. And I'm pretty sure this is not a death penalty case, but he does serve five to 15 years,

which is potentially if convicted, which is a serious charge. And yes, there is a sense now that DOJ is investigating the Stop the Steal money, the money that Trump raised and has not spent. We know that he's done this as a fundraiser, you know, politically. And now he did it in the Stop the Steal, a movement to contest an election that the charges are that they knew was, of course, actually conducted fairly. The whole thing was a lie. This idea that it was rigged and they were raising money off the lie, another potential front for legal paraphernalia. We'll talk a lot more about this, but Willie has the big story of the morning. Yeah, let's begin this morning as Buckingham Palace announced the passing of England's longest reigning monarch yesterday, writing in a brief statement, quote,

the queen died peacefully at Balmoral this afternoon. That is her summer home in Scotland. The Queen was 96 years old. What comes next is a meticulously planned national memorializing of the Queen, which reportedly was set in motion with four coded words yesterday. London Bridge is down. As part of the plans, England's new king, Charles III, will deliver a televised address to the United Kingdom tonight. Tomorrow, after privately taking an oath swearing to protect the Church of Scotland, the accession of King Charles is expected to be announced from a balcony at St. James Palace. That oath has been taken by every monarch since George I in 1714. Meanwhile, the Queen's body will be transported back to Buckingham Palace

for a small funeral reception attended by top government officials. That group will include the UK's new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, who was sworn in just this week. The Queen's body is expected to stay there until Tuesday before being moved again to Westminster Palace, where members of the public then will be able to pay their respects. Simultaneously, the new king will tour the UK and then return to London for Queen Elizabeth's funeral. Following that funeral, the queen will be buried inside St. George's Chapel at Windsor Castle. So that's just a little bit of what happens from here. We were on the air at this time yesterday when we got the news that the palace was concerned. Her doctors were concerned as the family rushed in. It was pretty clear to most observers what was happening. We got the news yesterday and the reaction from

around the world has been to praise this woman of 70 years on the throne. It really has been. And it's been a remarkable, almost universal praise, obviously, for a woman that was the head of a monarchy that you wouldn't you would not you usually wouldn't expect to have such effusive praise from almost all quarters. But that's exactly what happened. And it happened, especially in Britain, because Queen Elizabeth remained the one constant through time for a nation that was rocked by the collapse of its empire. The humiliation of the Suez, the pounds devaluation, the radicalism of the 60s, the blackouts of the 70s, a miserable decade for Britain. Of course, the death of are saying goodbye to their beloved Queen as members of a vibrant, extraordinarily diverse, technologically advanced, post-modern society that despite challenges still possesses one of the most powerful economies in the world

with a remarkably robust cultural reach. May the memory of Queen Elizabeth II serve as an inspiration to all of us who long admired her steadfast devotion to public service. And she would say, and she has said, most importantly, her humility before God. Cady, a very devout woman. I heard yesterday on the BBC somebody saying she was very devout, but it was a faith that she wore lightly. She did not run around and try to push it on anyone, that she was in fact, again, and I think it was Ed Luce yesterday who said how remarkable that she presided over a Britain that went from an ancient empire during her time to a postmodern society without revolt, without revolution. Yeah, she always kept in mind and very assiduously balanced how much to let the public in on the monarchy and how much to retain the mystique of the monarchy. And that she felt was the kind of the most powerful way that she could

keep the monarchy strong. She did let the cameras in occasionally. She did let people see occasionally what she was feeling. But on things like her faith, for example, you're right, that was private. And she had this incredible ability to keep her private thoughts just that in a world where nobody does that. I mean, we live in a world of massive oversharing. The one person in the world who never overshared, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. She didn't do it. She never complained. She never shirked her duty. And she certainly never overshared. And in a way, she was an exception in her time. The first part of her reign, when she came to the throne in the 1950s, she was a figure of that period. You listen to those old videos and the old tape recordings of her and she sounds straight out of the Second World War, doesn't she?

She's got that that voice that takes you straight back to Second World War movies. It kind of incredibly posh and so different from today. And she's a creature of that time. And yet she did manage to evolve. She sent First Monarch to send an email, First Monarch to send a tweet. She managed to evolve with the times enough to keep the monarchy relevant without stripping it of the mystique that she realized was so important to its strength and its longevity? You know, John Meacham, what really was remarkable is how she did remain a constant through the most tumultuous times politically, culturally, in every other way.

And the word conservative has been thrown around so loosely over the past 30 years. I always go back to to Russell Kirk and the conservative mind and his intro, the last the last intro he did, his seventh volume, where he said both the impulse to improve and the impulse to conserve are necessary to the healthy functioning of any society. Whether we join our energies to the party of progress or the party of permanence must depend upon the circumstances of the time. And Queen Elizabeth, she understood her job to run, you know, it was to be the head of the government, whether it was Winston Churchill or whether it was Anthony Eden, whether it was Harold Wilson, whether it was left or right, hard conservative or near socialist. What Katty said is the case. It was her job to listen and understand her role in that constitutional order, provide permanency and not run out giving her opinion on every single issue that passed.

How hard that must have been over 70 years at a time of just revolutionary change. imagine being someone who met with uh every week with prime ministers uh occasionally with presidents with statesmen with leaders of culture and business and uh the arts and not being able to use not being able to say what you think uh As Cady says, I mean, the dominant feature of our culture now is that we have the means to express opinions constantly without having opinions worth expressing constantly. You know, that's the tension that defines contemporary life. And in that sense, Elizabeth II is the embodiment of a counterculture. She was restrained. She was dignified.

And she did her duty. And I use the word dignified on purpose. Walter Badgett, constitutional scholars in Britain. Remember, she was a constitutional monarch for a country that has a constitution, but didn't write it down. Right. Cady's country is the only one that could just figure what we know. You know, it's an ambient reality. And there's a really important lesson there for us in our time. We're having a hard time following the Constitution, the words of the Constitution. The British follow something that's not even written down because they intuitively know what they're supposed to do.

But Badger broke Walter Badger, broke it down. There's an efficient part of the British Constitution, prime ministers and parliaments, and there's a dignified part. And Elizabeth II was the embod and all the hours to come. You know, capturing exactly what John and Katty both have said here. Andrew Sullivan, the great writer and thinker, tweeted this yesterday. I'm trying to write a column, find myself in tears. I fear that everything she exemplified, restraint, duty, grace, reticence, persistence are disappearing from this world, which kind of gets at what both of you have been saying. Let's also bring in Pulitzer Prize winning columnist, The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson. He previously served as London bureau chief for the paper. Gene, we began to talk about this

yesterday, but just the incredible scope of Queen Elizabeth's life really spelled out by this statistic, which is that her first prime minister as queen was Winston Churchill, born in 1874. Her last was Liz Truss, born in 1975. Talking about a span of 100 years there. The things she has seen, the life she has lived and the touch points in history that she has witnessed. Right. There never will be another like her. I think it's it's it's fair to say certainly not King Charles, who was coming to the throne at age 73. The next heir, William, is already 40. I mean, we're not going to see probably ever a reign like hers.

And, you know, she did, at least from what you hear from the prime ministers, former prime ministers who met with her. It's not that she didn't have opinions that she would express privately with them, but that never became public because she knew that it was certainly her job not to have public opinions, not even to betray with her facial expressions what she thought at a given moment. Because, you know, she saw a horse and she smiled. That would be great for the people who love horses would love it. But the people who didn't like horses wouldn't like it very much. And so she had to she had to be the sort of very neutral, neutral figure. Meacham quoted Walter Badgett. Another thing that Badgett said was that the the the mystery is the is the monarchy's life. And and he said, we we must not let in daylight upon magic. And I think she lived by those words.

She was very wary of sharing and oversharing and welcoming people into the inner sanctum of the royal family, because that would let daylight upon the magic of the monarchy. The subsequent generations are not anywhere near as good about or as good at that as she was. There's been a whole lot of daylight on the inner life of King Charles. And so we'll see if they can sustain this legacy, this record that she set, which is, any way you look at it, so impressive. Seems daunting.

Yeah, it does. It. Seems daunting. Yeah, it does. It does seem daunting. Yeah. King Charles III. Yeah. Will leave the princely stuff way back in the 90s. Got to get used to that. Yeah, King Charles.

But to Jean's point, I mean, she, Andrew Sullivan's words, I mean, dignity, grace, fortitude. Right. We, Andrew Sullivan's words, I mean, dignity, grace, fortitude. It seems as she went into old age, those attributes stood out even more as society seems to lose them. There's no doubt about it. And Andrew Sullivan, when I read what Andrew Sullivan wrote, I mean, it just serves as a great challenge. I mean, and let it let it begin with me. It's it's just the case that that she she was able to hold back and show restraint when when it was needed. There were very few times where it did get out publicly that she was not pleased with the prime minister's

position. One example of that was apartheid in South Africa. There were a few others, but very rarely did she do that. Jonathan, you're looking at the papers and some remarkable headlines today. All across. We have here, obviously, the New York Times, this gorgeous black and white photograph here, Queen and Spirit of Britain, Elizabeth II, whose seven-decade reign, linked generations, dies at 96. That's full front page coverage here. The Wall Street Journal opts for the more youthful photograph. This is what the palace put out on its website yesterday. Gorgeous shot of her there.

It's, of course, on the cover of the tabloids as well. Here in New York City, Queen Elizabeth II, the New York Daily News. And then here at the New York Post, again, the queen, the queen, simple and powerful. Down, down below, special report under Biden's laptop. OK. Joining us now to the death of the queen. Also, the twins finally beat the Yankees. That's on the back page of the New York Daily News. All right. Joining us now. Buckingham Palace, NBC senior international correspondent, Kirsten. Here, you know, I'll just say, you know, I grew up in the 70s. I remember what the 70s looked like in Britain from afar. I remember the sex pistols. I remember God Save the Queen.

I remember the protests, the shock, the punk movement and, you know, the monarchy under constant attack. And then I saw a clip from outside of Buckingham Palace yesterday. People, I'm sure, the same age as Johnny Rotten at the time. And they were all outside. And what were they doing? They were singing upon hearing the news, God save the king. It is remarkable this monarchy has withstood Hitler, the punk movement. I movement i of course joke about that one but but they they've withstood personal scandals from uh the now king and have endured and endured and it seems

more beloved than ever yeah and it's reassuring today uh joe to see while there is all of the grief, and we'll talk about that, and all of the shock, frankly, despite the fact that she they the justices have been called to do justice on behalf of the king not the Queen it is that moment where we say the Queen is dead long live the king and so you have that but there are so many aspects to this you have that happening and then you have the crowds behind me gathering. And as you mentioned, Joe, people of all ages, people of all political beliefs. As I walk through those crowds, there are people kind of standing slightly a distance away, just in quiet, somber reflection. And people are having different experiences. I have to say, one aspect of this for me this morning was just clearly we're busy right now. This is a big story in our work.

And yet every now and then there's a moment where I just stop and just the queen's dead. Just as you do when you lose anyone. And it's trying to take that in. And sometimes it just gets you here. And I suspect that will be how people will feel for some time. I just want to show you. Jonathan was looking at your newspapers there. I want to show you some of the newspapers here and almost all of them printed in black for morning. Front page of The Sun here. We loved you, ma'am. The front page of The Mirror.

You know, newspapers struggling really honestly to find the words. The front page of The Mirror simply, thank you. The front page of The Daily Telegraph, which is an old-fashioned broadsheets newspaper. So as you can see,

it's double, it's all in black and the picture spreads right across the broadsheet. And then they have this quote, which is a quote from the Queen when she lost her husband. Grief is the price we pay for love. And people are grieving across this country and across the world. And that, I think, encapsulates this split screen between the private and the public side of royal life. But all of that constitutional talk, if you like, and all of the conversations that we

will inevitably have about our different systems and how imperfect they are and different kinds of democracies and how we can love each other, all of that is good to talk about but there is also this aspect with the queen herself isn't it isn't there and and it's hard to comprehend that she was standing on that balcony just a few months ago celebrating 70 years on the throne and that picture of her appointing prime minister liz trust this week doing her duty just days before she died is just quite extraordinary. She was the queen with all of the royal paraphernalia and pomp and pageantry that surrounds that. Yet she was also a working woman who kept working until her final days. She was a queen who led this country and actually the world in many ways,

who was with this country and the the world in many ways, who was with this country and the world through the Second World War. And she stayed at her post until the very last moment. It is a it is what she leaves us in death from her life is a deeper understanding about what duty and service really means. NBC's Keir Simmons, thank you. Those headlines are absolutely beautiful. Thank you very much for that report. We're going to have much more ahead on this.

We are. And, you know, Keir was saying that, you know, it's like when anyone loses a lead or loses somebody. But this is unique unto itself i was thinking i i so mcjagger tweeted yesterday for my whole life for my whole life how old is mcjagger he's over 80. he's pushing 80. yeah and that's when it occurred to me well anyway uh mcjagger says for my for uh my whole life for majesty queen elizabeth Elizabeth II has always been there. In my childhood, I can recall watching her wedding highlights on TV. I remember as a beautiful young lady to the much beloved grandmother of the nation, my deepest sympathies are with the royal family. That's when it struck me, Willie, that there are people pushing 80 now, pushing 80 who have only known. They don't know life without her. One queen. And every person

we speak to today from Britain, this is the first day of their life that they have been a British citizen without Queen Elizabeth at the head of the government. And that's why Keir sharing the way he was feeling was so poignant, because it's probably, I imagine, how everyone in the country is feeling. And by the way, people around the world who have watched her for all of these years. King Charles. There we go again. King Charles, if you get used to saying it, he is the king. He'll give an address tonight. And even though the country and the world have known this day was coming since he was born 73 years ago, it's still, I imagine, will be jarring to the people of the United Kingdom to have him States. And up next, the DOJ's targeted appeal of a Florida judge's controversial special master ruling. And Steve Bannon has his day in court. Could that lead to former President Trump having one of his own? Plus, Democrats keep saying

abortion is on the ballot this November. Now a court ruling in Michigan has made that literally the case. We'll explain that. And later yesterday, when talking about the mess Rick Scott has made with the National Republican Senatorial Committee, we joked that no one knows who his Democratic counterpart is. Well, it's Senator Gary Peters. By the way, that's the way you want to debate it. And he's going to join the table. You're watching Morning Joe.

We'll be right back. You don't want to know who the guy is. No. 32 past the hour, the Justice Department has decided to appeal part of a federal judge's ruling to appoint a special master to review the documents the FBI removed from former President Donald Trump's Florida home and club. Prosecutors say they have serious concerns about handing government secrets over to a third party. The department argues the records seized from Mar-a-Lago last month are not the former president's personal records and he has no right to possess them. The DOJ also asked Judge Aileen Cannon to put on hold her order blocking the department from using the seized records in its criminal

investigation while it contests her ruling to a federal appeals court. Law enforcement officials said in a filing yesterday they would suffer irreparable harm if Judge Cannon's order remained in place. Judge Cannon directed Trump's lawyers to respond to the government's filing by Monday. Let's bring it around. NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent, Ken Delaney. Hey, Ken, I know. So this is getting appealed. It's going to go up to the 11th Circuit, the 11th Circuit, a pretty conservative circuit at the same time.

I'm sure they don't want to be reversed by the Supreme Court on something this huge. And when you have everybody from Andy McCarthy with the New York Post, a tough legal mind who has usually supported Donald Trump, to to former Attorney General Barr, to obviously Neil Katyal, saying that this was just absolutely egregious decision. You wonder if even a conservative circuit like the 11th Circuit won't overturn this. What are you hearing? You're absolutely right, Joe. And I think that's why the Justice Department focused on the most egregious, from their point of view, the least supportable part of what the judge did here, which they're basically saying is, Judge, we can live with the special master looking at Donald Trump's tax and health records that we took from his office, but the special master has no right to review these hundred classified documents that we've already segregated and put in a special place because Donald Trump

had no right to them. They are not his personal records. They are government records. There's no possible claim of attorney-client privilege, the Justice Department is saying. And even though the judge held out some theoretical possibility that some of them could be covered by executive privilege, the Justice Department says, even if that were true,

the Nixon Supreme Court Watergate case says that a criminal investigation holds sway here and we need these documents. And interestingly, in this request to the judge to stay part of her order, there's an affidavit from the head of the FBI's counterintelligence division where he says, basically, look, the intelligence community has had to put a stop on their damage assessment here because of your order, because what we're doing with the criminal investigation is inextricably linked to the damage assessment. For example, he said there are a bunch of empty files marked

classified that we found at Mar-a-Lago. We need to figure out where those documents went and we need criminal tools to do that. You can't just tell us that you can do a damage assessment, but you can't look at these documents for the purposes of the criminal investigation. So and some observers have said that the DOJ is giving this judge a graceful way out. I would disagree with that. A graceful way out would have been a motion to reconsider to the judge. They didn't go that route. They're essentially saying we're appealing, judge, but we're giving you one last chance here to do the right thing and put a stay on this really egregious part of your order that has no support in law, according to

the Justice Department. And Ken, in the filing, you know, law enforcement saying they would suffer irreparable harm if the order remained in place. They do not want a third party seeing these documents again. It seems when Trump's team makes a move, they end up revealing more about the severity of this case. That's right, Mika, because as the National Archives said in a letter weeks ago, some of these documents contain some of the most highly classified markings that our government has, special access programs, which are available to only a small number of people in the government created by cabinet secretaries. There are compartments people have to be read in. So some of the FBI

agents who seized these documents had to have special clearance before they could even look at them. So we're talking about really super sensitive stuff. And what the government is saying, the irreparable harm part is we need to figure out right now what sources and methods have been exposed, not in a month, not three months when the appeals process goes through. They're saying the United States of America, not just prosecutors. The public is suffering irreparable harm here. The longer we have to wait to investigate what the damage was. Yeah. And and Mika, anyway, the Trump team turns and this is a problem.

Anyway, they turn anything they plead, anything that's revealed. They're like, OK, they're going to hurt themselves and they're going to hurt themselves for the reason that we keep repeating every day. And after he's been indicted and charged, people are going to look back and go, well, of course he was indicted and charged for this right now. Of course, people are acting shocked and stunned and deeply sad. But the reason why whichever way they turn, it's bad news is because nobody has justification for what he's done. He's not justified it. And he's not denied it. His hacks out in the media haven't justified it. His hacks both in and out of prison haven't haven't justified it.

There's no justifying of this. I've got to say also, Chief Justice Roberts, and I would think one or two other people on the court, the high court, Willie, are going to be really uncomfortable with a district court judge in the judiciary, in the judicial branch, telling the executive branch, the Department of Justice. Now, you know what? We understand the Constitution gives you the power to enforce the laws, but I'm not going to let you do that. We're going to rifle through these. We're going to rifle through these and we're going to delay your investigation because Fort Stewart federal judge or Fort Pierce federal judge in Florida. I'm going to just stop an investigation by the Department of Justice against a former president of the United States regarding perhaps the greatest security breach that that any high level official in the executive branch has ever committed.

I don't see the Roberts court going, yeah, we're cool with that. And that's why this argument that the Trump team wants to let this play out and get to the Supreme Court, which he thinks is favorable to him, doesn't make a lot of sense. They were against him. Just on the merits. They're against him in the stop the steal lies. 63 federal judges were against him. I understand they had their abortion ruling. I understand on these ideological issues, how they respond. I do on these ideological issues how they respond. I do not believe they're going to respond in a way that surprises us when you're talking about, first of all, separation of powers issues. And secondly, law enforcement issues where they're really they're going to start letting district court judges across America stop DOJ investigations. That's insane. And every time a new motion comes out, a new filing from the Trump team, as Mika said, we learn more about it. And it gives the Justice Department another chance to say

these documents don't belong to you. You had no right to take them and put them at the pool shed in Mar-a-Lago. Ken, let me get you on another story here. Steve Bannon pleaded not guilty yesterday in a New York court to charges of money laundering, scheming to defraud and conspiracy. The charges relating to his involvement with the organization We Build the Wall, a group created and advertised as a fundraising effort to complete the wall at the southern border, as President Trump promised back then. It is alleged Bannon defrauded donors and illegally funneled more than one hundred thousand dollars to the organization's president and then profited himself. Bannon now faces between five to 15 years for the most serious charge. In 2020,

Bannon was charged federally, you'll remember, for his activities with We Build the Wall, but then was pardoned by then President Trump before the case went to trial. Bannon was convicted in July of two counts of contempt of Congress after refusing to comply with a subpoena from the Congressional Committee investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol. So, Ken, it was a striking image yesterday to see Steve Bannon placed in handcuffs in court. Where does this case go from here? Is there a chance he really serves time in jail? I think so, Willie. I mean, this is a very strong case. It was a very strong federal case, and now it's a very strong state case. It's a garden variety fraud, the way they've alleged

it here. These people made some representations, and they raised $25 million, and they diverted some of it for personal use. And what's really interesting about this case to me is you'll remember that Donald Trump pardoned Paul Manafort and the state of New York tried to charge Paul Manafort with crimes. And that prosecution blew up over the double jeopardy provision in the Constitution. Well, that can't apply here because Bannon was never convicted in the federal case. It never went to trial. So the state is free to bring really the identical case, the different charges under state law, and go forward with it. And it's really hard to see what Steve Bannon's defense is here. We'll have to wait and see. But I mean, as prosecutors have looked at this, who have looked at this, have said this is an open and shut garden variety

fraud case, the kind they prosecute every day. NBC News Justice Correspondent Ken Delaney, and thank you very much. And coming up, the Michigan Supreme Court makes a major ruling, putting abortion on the ballot. We'll talk to Michigan Congresswoman Alyssa Slotkin and former chief of staff to the DCCC, Adrian Elrod, about how this could shift the outcome of every race in that state. That's when Morning Joe returns. It's six past the hour. The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that a proposed state constitutional amendment that would protect abortion rights should be placed on November's ballot. The ruling yesterday overrides last

week's party line vote by the Board of State Canvassers, which blocked the certification of the proposed amendment. Over 750,000 Michigan residents signed the proposal, more than any signed proposal in the state's history. Michigan joins several other states where voters will have a say this fall on to what extent abortion is legal post Roe v. Wade, with votes also scheduled in California, Montana, Vermont and Kentucky. Joining us now, Democratic Congresswoman Alyssa Slotkin of Michigan and former chief of staff to the DCCC, Adrienne Elrod. She was senior aide to the Hillary Clinton and Biden presidential campaign. So we'll get overall context on this from Adrienne. But Alyssa, how does your race feel a day after this decision? Well, I think all of us in Michigan,

up and down the ticket, know that this is an issue that is completely galvanized people. And it's galvanized voters who might already be pro-choice, but it's also really galvanized voters who consider themselves pro-life. They just want some exceptions, some flexibility. So I think for us in Michigan, we was something that we, you know, we believed in and we got signatures. And when the Supreme Court came out yesterday for a lot of us down ballot, it was a very important moment. So, Congressman, this has become in many races the defining issue ahead of this November's midterms. Tell us a little bit about hearing from Democrats, Republicans alike about this. But also, what are Republicans in office in Michigan saying about this issue? I know we've had many conversations

on this show about the gubernatorial candidate there who said this would be an opportunity for underage girls to have a baby. Yeah, well, look, I come from a district that is overwhelmingly pro-life. It is a more conservative district, a Republican-leaning district. But it has been amazing how many Republican women have come up to me and talked about how, look, I could never personally have an abortion,, I could never personally have an abortion, but I've never walked in another woman's shoes, wouldn't tell another woman how to live her life. What we're seeing, though, is a huge division between those women and the elected Republican leaders in the state and the candidates in the state. The Republicans are the dog that

caught the car on this issue. They literally have been preaching about this and talking about it in black and white terms. And then as soon as it happened, they realized that politics doesn't make great policy and that particularly women understand there's a million reasons when you desperately want a child, you may not be able to carry it to term. And this 1931 ban does not speak to the realities that women go through. And what I'm sure what you're hearing is what I'm hearing. I come from a pro-life area. Most people I grew up with consider themselves pro-life. And so many of them have checked out on the radicalism, the radicalism in Michigan, where you've got somebody running for governor saying a 14 year old girl being raped is a perfect

example of why she needs to carry the rapist's baby and have the state compel her to have a forced birth. Why 10-year-old girls are fleeing the state of Michigan. This happened a couple of weeks ago. We had a representative from South Carolina practically in tears saying, I know I voted for this. A doctor told me about a young woman who might die because of what we did here. This is crazy people. You need to catch your breath and back up. And again, these are pro-life people that are saying enough. And yesterday I saw a clip. I think the recount posted it. The South Carolina State Senate, they're debating a proposal that would ban nearly all abortions in the state. They've rejected that. But opposition came from every Democrat, female Republicans and some male Republicans.

And they kept it from overcoming a filibuster. I want you, though, to listen to state Senator Katrina Shealey. She is a pro-life Republican from South Carolina. And listen to what she said about the lack of an exception for rape and incest. Speech is going viral. Here's part of what she said. Why am I talking about this? Isn't she pro-life? Yes, I'm pro-life. I'm also pro-life of the mother, the life she has with her children who are already born. I care about the children who are forced into adulthood that was made up by a legislature full of men so they can take a victory lap and feel good about it. You want

children raising children who will most likely suffer domestic violence and live in poverty, but you don't care because you've done your job and you will forget about them once they are born. You will fight my legislation on foster homes and adoption. You will not support legislation to stop sex trafficking and pornography. You will not support my legislation for free meals for all children in schools. You're not going to help me on that. If you want to believe that God is wanting you to push a bill through, with no exception, that kills mothers and ruins the lives of children, lets mothers bring home babies to bury them,

then I think you're miscommunicating with God. Or maybe you're just not communicating with him at all. By the way, by the way, a slow clap for her. And let me just say, as a Southern Baptist, I grew up reading the Bible, maybe a backslidden Baptist, but I still know the Bible. Jesus never once talked about abortion, never once. And it was happening back in ancient times. It was happening during his time. Never once mentioned it for people perverting the gospel of Jesus Christ down to one issue. It's heresy. Go. If you don't believe me, if that makes you angry, why don't you do something you haven't done in a long time? Open the Bible, open the New Testament, read the red letters. You won't see it there.

And yet there are people who are using Jesus as a shield to make 10 year old rape girls go through a living and breathing hell here on earth. They've also conveniently overlooked the parts of the New Testament where Jesus talks about taking care of the needy, taking care of those who are helpless, who live a hopeless life, because they believe, these state legislators believe, that life begins at fertilization and ends at childbirth. And, Katty, what a powerful message yesterday from a Southern pro-life conservative Republican who I guarantee you speaks for so many Southern pro-life conservative Republican women. She echoes the feeling that the Supreme Court's ruling didn't take into account the complexities that would happen after it made that ruling. the tragic circumstances of women around the country, whether it is a 10-year-old girl in Ohio

or a woman who has a pregnancy and the fetus is badly deformed and she needs to have an extraction. The ruling didn't allow for the human complexities of that. And I think that's partly what's coming back to bite Republicans as we head into the midterms. And Adrian, that is not the first lawmaker that we've seen stand up and say, you know what, this is too brutal. It is having unintended consequences. He's speaking from a religious point of view, but there have been politicians in the South, local lawmakers in the South also speaking from a legal point of view, that this just makes them feel, even if they are pro-life, this ruling is made and the consequences, perhaps the unintended consequences of this ruling have made them feel deeply uncomfortable. Yeah, you're exactly right, Katty. I mean,

she's not the first and she certainly won't be the last. I think we're going to hear this from more and more conservative Republicans between now and the midterms and probably after that, because this is a law that's on the books. The Supreme Court voted for it. It's not going away anytime soon. But this is something that Republicans have been so focused on for 20, 30 years and to an extent since Roe was enacted into law in 1973. And it's coming back to bite them because to the point that you just made, Patty, they didn't think through all the repercussions, you know, the life of the mother, all the circumstances that women have to go through when they are taking care of their own reproductive health. They did not think this through. And what we are seeing electorally is how this is playing out in certain demographics.

Latino men, for example, a demographic that Democrats have, you know, struggled with over the last several presidential election cycles. We've lost more and more Latino men. They say in certain areas that they will only support a pro-choice candidate. You know, I think some people, probably some Republicans thought, oh, you know, Latino men tend to lean more Catholic, they're more conservative. That ended up actually not being the case. And you're seeing this in my key demographics in almost across the board, across the board in the electorate. Younger voters, of course, are becoming more registered. But you're seeing it again among some of these Latino men, black men, key demographics that Democrats need to win

in not just 2022, but 2024. Gene. Yes. You know, when you hear a South Carolina Republican speaking like that, you have Republicans. I mean, talk about stepping in it. They have stepped in at this time. I have just a quick question for Congresswoman Slotkin, which is how do you quantify this for me? How much, how many points does this mean for Democratic candidates this fall in Michigan to have abortion on the ballot in this way? Yeah, I mean, it's significant. I think it's a turnout issue, right? I mean, I represent Michigan State University. The dorms just came back, the school, the students just came back, and watching us do voter registration. There is a ton of single issue voters among our youngest voters who are registering.

Maybe they wouldn't for a midterm, but they are registering because they want to vote on our ballot initiative. But I think the most interesting thing that I've seen representing a Republican leaning district is Republican women. Right. These Republican women who I think were taken for granted as being part of that pro-life community. Maybe they are pro-life, but they are not willing to let their daughters and their granddaughters grow up with fewer rights than they had for their own body. And I think it's totally not by coincidence that the woman that we just highlighted in the state Senate, she's a woman, right. I think women are really feeling this issue, you know, in a way that, you know, many of them have got that level of rage just under the surface

that we're trying to manage, especially in a place like Michigan, where we've been talking about personal freedom for two and a half years, freedom not to get vaccinated, the freedom not to wear a mask. Right. We that has been our conversation. and no one's missing the irony to wear a mask. But by the way, says the Republican, if your daughter gets raped while she's away at camp or while she's somewhere else, if she gets raped, you have no say. You can't talk to your preacher. No, you can't talk to your doctor. You can't talk to your health care, mental health care provider. You can't talk to a counselor. And you all can't get together and decide what's best for your 13 year old girl, your 14 year old daughter. saying, oh, being raped and having the rapist baby will be what? Healing? Will be healing. To have a 13 year old girl raped is going to be that process is going to be healing for her. It's sick. And by the way, it's not just her. This is what Republicans in state

legislatures across America are saying and doing it's freakish. I'm sorry. What say you? It's just bizarre. I think I agree. I think that there is a feeling like how is this really the conversation? I will say also, you know, I'm running against someone who also has the sort of no exceptions idea. Right. No exception for rape. No exception for incest. None of that. say also, you know, I'm running against someone who also has the sort of no exceptions idea, right? No exception for rape, no exception for incest, none of that. But what we're seeing now is those in tough races are now trying to change their stance. He's stripped his website. He's trying to cover it. Yeah. And that's a trend I think we're going to see. We want to try to forget masters. We want to ask you about Mar-a-Lago just a second, but really quickly, the Democrats have a lot to work with, a lot of wins, a lot of legislation. And these these two negative

strains that row of what's going on with Mar-a-Lago with President Trump, how do they synthesize this into a powerful message? Well, look, you've got to go out there. You can't only just talk about the bad things, right? You've got to talk about the good things. And the great thing about President Biden is he has a lot of legislative accomplishments, four major economic bills in 20 months. So you've got to go out there, talk about the things you've done for the American people, but also draw that contrast. And again, Roe is such a galvanizing issue. You've got Republicans who are erasing this from their website. They're trying to run away from it. Then you have some who are really leaning in, who seem to be a little tone deaf. So look, it's always difficult for the

party in power to, you know, hold on to the House and Senate going into a midterm cycle. But I do think all of this is going to help mitigate some of the losses that we might have had before Roe is on the ballot. It's clear that Roe ruling has totally changed the calculus of what Democrats think is possible this fall. Congressman, I want to ask you to put on your hat as a former CIA analyst and what you've seen over the last several weeks coming out of Mar-a-Lago and the Justice Department, all these disclosures about the kinds of documents that the president and his team took from the White House and stored in Mar-a-Lago, obstructed, refused to give them back when the National Archives asked for them for more than a year. As a CIA analyst, what do

you make of what you've seen and heard? Well, look, as a former CIA analyst, we we when you see those cover sheets. Right. I mean, we all have to put cover sheets on top of classified information when you're moving it around. And those pictures of those highly classified documents and those cover sheets, it just sort of makes your stomach turn a bit. I think what people sometimes forget is I think since 2000, we've had 11 or 12 pretty high profile investigations, FBI investigations of sometimes very senior people in the U.S. government from both sides of the aisle who have been accused of mishandling classified information, including former CIA chiefs. I mean, very important people. This is a process that we have to let play out. There's going to be a lot of speculation on what's in there. I haven't seen them. We haven't seen them. We have to let the process go. And what I think is extremely

important, though, is to understand what was in the documents and, frankly, what is at risk for our sources and methods. People forget to get that information, to have it be that highly classified. We either had a human being who sold out his country and told us some of those secrets, right? Someone very high up. We've either been listening to someone's phones and we know sensitive information going on. It risks, A, that source of information, but could risk people's lives for the folks who actually procured that for us. Democratic Congresswoman Alyssa Slotkin of Michigan, thank you very much for being on with us this morning. Good to have you, Adrian Elrod. Eugene Robinson, thank you both as well.

Great to see you.