Morning Joe - Rep. Elise Stefanik booed offstage during event in home district

Episode Date: August 20, 2025

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-NY, was booed offstage during event in home district

Our Congresswoman from New York 21, Elise Stefani. It is truly humbling to be here to commemorate an honor the great John Zerloid. You know, I'm going to turn this back to you, Mark. This sad is not being respectful. John Zerlo is to be respected. I'm going to turn it back to you. Sounds like one of my concerts. That's Republican woman, Congresswoman, Elise Stephanic, New York, booed off the stage during an event in her home district on Monday. The congresswoman was met with a wave of loud jeers and booze during an event to honor a local politician who died last year. She finally just gave up talking.

She later blamed radical far-left. Democratic. I like that. They get them in like Wyoming. Oh, it's so radical. Yeah, from, yeah, exactly. So, you know, this reminds me so much of 2009 during the Obamacare hearings. And you would have senators, members of Congress going out, and they would just, it was, man, it was really, really tough. And it just shows you how quickly things changed in politics in 2008, Barack Obama and the Democrats win a historic landslide the next year you have even people like our own Claire McCaskill who's very popular in her state but but but Democrats all over the country just getting hammered in town hall meetings getting booed at town hall meetings and then of course

one year later you have the Tea Party winning big um boy we're seeing a lot of that where Republicans and this is always and I'm serious this is just a terrible sign for a party Republicans are scared to go out in public now, and that's one reason why. We call that the Plattsburgh cheer right there. It's a cousin to the Bronx cheer here in New York. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, at least Stefanik, that's in her home district. Sure, there may have been some Democrats.

They're yelling at her, but every time this happens at a town hall meeting, Republicans say it's Democrats. They've infiltrated us. They bust them in from the outside. But if you watch these town halls over this last several weeks, that's just not the case. It's constituents in these red districts many times yelling at their representatives because of their votes on the so-called big beautiful bill and taking things away from them. And this plain to see fact that in that bill, billionaires get tax breaks and people like the ones who are upset at their representatives are losing something, whether that's Medicare or whether it's their hospital in their district. You can go on down the list of things that are being taken away from them in favor of rich people in this country. It's just a fact of the substance of the bill.

So some agitators, some Democrats there, probably, but also a lot of Republicans in these districts are mad at the people who represent them. Well, they really are mad for a lot of different reasons. But, you know, the bill is is doing so terribly in the polls and for good reason. It gave tax cuts to billionaires. It gave tax cuts to multinational corporations. It gave tax cuts to monopolists, you know, like Mark Zuckerberg, massive tax cuts. Well, what is that? New York 19, I think.

She's in upstate New York. A big district. A lot of rural voters there. And those are, I'm hearing from, from, from, CEOs, rural hospitals, health care hospitals, they are really suffering. And this bill is really hurting health care. It's New York's 21st. Thank you, Alex. They're really suffering. So, you know, it may not be quite the same as an urban or a suburban center. But you go out into a place like New York 21, and you'll have people and say, my Medicaid is being taken away

for my children's health care, for my parents' nursing home care, and for what reason? So Mark Zuckerberg could get the biggest tax cut ever. So Elon Musk could get the biggest tax cut ever, you know, so Amazon could get the biggest tax cut ever. The, um, a few things with that, there's, you know, and I know that during August, the Democrats are trying to, um, trying to define that, uh, the, the, the big, beautiful bill as such. And it's not just that rural hospitals may close. It's, um, and if, if that happens, they're making the connection to people who aren't

relying on Medicaid, that means your health care costs are going to go up because people will show up in emergency rooms to get care. People, like, this is bad for everyone. And I think it's not, it's that, which hurts people, you know, their actual health care plus their pocketbooks, and then just sort of a gut level sickness about what's happening elsewhere in the country, right? You know, they're like this gut level. We've seen this in the town halls of Republican member of Congress did in Wisconsin a couple weeks ago, right? It was, and that was about immigration, and it wasn't even about the fact of deportations. It was the manner in which they were being done.

So, and, you know, at least Stefan, I can say that these are Democrats showing up. The point is Democrats are showing up. Democrats figured it. You know, that just shows, that either shows organic anger and or Democratic organization. Either way, either way, it's bad news. I would just say I held, I probably held 200, 300 town hall meeting. Nothing would have ever happened like that over, over, you know, all my time in Congress. And it wouldn't have happened that way because they would have had a lot.

more people out supporting me. And if they ever heard I went somewhere where I got booed, there would be 10 times as many people, you know, cheering them. But what a lot of people are saying what's there to be excited about? Unless you're Mark Zuckerberg, unless you own a tech monopoly in Silicon Valley, unless you run a multinational corporation, what's there to be excited about unless you're, you know, Jeff Bezos and you get, you know, biggest tax cut of your life for Mark Zuckerberg and you get the biggest tax. What's there to be a lot? What's there to be a lot? excited about in this bill and even on rural hospitals. And you're exactly right. So you take away health care from people who are on Medicaid, right? It's not just like, oh, hey, you know,

we showed them. Right. I'm exactly sure what you're showing them. But what happens is they go to emergency rooms. Yeah. The hospitals have to treat them by law. That hospital incurs more costs. those costs are passed on to people not on Medicaid. And so the cost of health care, which is already skyrocketing, continues to skyrocket. They have a couple of other problems here, Jonathan O'Meer. The biggest problem is Donald Trump's not going to be on the ballot next year. Republicans don't do well when Donald Trump's not on the ballot. They just don't do well.

But they didn't do well in 2017, 2018, 2019. They even lost in 2020. They didn't do well in 21, 22 or 23. He got on the ballot in 24 and they did okay. He's not on the ballot now. And you look at the generic ballot test. I mean, Democrats have their lowest approval ratings ever. Let me say that again.

Democrats have their lowest approval ratings. ever. They've worked hard to get those low approval ratings. And yet they're still beating the Republicans by five points. If you're a Republican congressman, you got to be like John Lovitz in the 1988 Saturday Night Lives Get. I can't believe I'm losing to this guy. But they are. It's terrible news. Not for Donald Trump. He's not running. It's terrible news for those Republican members of Congress. Yeah, and that's seen in Plattsburgh also probably not a hopeful sign for Congresswoman Stephonix possible gubernatorial campaign in New York. She's looking to run for that seat as well. You're right. It's a few things here. Unlike earlier in the year, when the NRC was telling

Republicans, hey, don't even hold town halls. This time in August recess, like, look, if you want to, go ahead, defend the bill. The White House, whoever, signal to them, keep it limited. Like, don't be out too much. This is not a town hall, of course. It's an event. But they were aware of this brewing backlash to the bill on the Medicaid stuff in particular, the tax cuts for the wealthy and the like. And as Democrats, yes, are still struggling to come up with a positive message. Right now, it's still much more just we stand in opposition to this. But Republicans are out there finding tough sledding. The polls are what the polls are. They are in a tough way right now. And that's also, it's that concern. Donald Trump, not on the ballot, but Donald Trump deeply

worried about what's going to happen at next year's midterms, which is I suddenly Joe, were in this redistricting push because there is such a fear that they're going to lose the House and what that could mean for Trump, not just stall on his agenda, but opening up investigations again, potentially even impeachment again. Some Democrats are talking about that, were they to regain the majority? So therefore, you're seeing this push in Texas because they're aware it's really hard to defend their signature peaches of legislation and keep the majority. And Willie, you can see the Democrats are trying to find their footing. And it's quite embarrassing, actually. I mean, Gavin Newsom. I mean, have you seen what he's doing online and say,

just take a deep breath? Don't, don't try to turn the ship 180 degrees and, and one, they don't know what to do. I have a good idea. Instead of trying to make school Donald Trump, talk into the camera about affordability. Talk about making groceries, like more affordable. Talk about what you're going to do for housing. Talk about what you're going to do for energy prices that continue to go up. We heard the congressman yesterday talk about energy prices skyrocketing in New Jersey. You know, don't try, you know, as I've been saying, Donald Trump's not on the ballot in 26. He's not on the ballot in 28. Why try to drag Muhammad Ali in the ring when you got Chuck Weppner standing right in front of you.

And a Weppner, Weppner's a bleeder. He's a bleeder. You want him. So why are you going, I'm going after Adonald? No, you're not, you're not running against Donald Trump.

Go after Tweedle D or Tweedledum. You know, Chuck Webner, a bleeder. Go after him. I just respect to Chuck Weppner. Yeah, I'll do respect, of course. He kind of held in there long ago. Inspired Rocky, many people say.

I think he did. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, this is the attention economy that Governor Newsom understands. You've got to get attention somehow. So he's on social media doing parodies of Donald Trump. And he's trying his best to kind of grab some attention. I think he's looking beyond 2026, obviously.

You know, who's writing about all this is Jim Van de High. Oh, no way. And he's trying to find their footing. Let's bring in the Pulitzer Prize win in columnist, MSNBC Political, and else Eugene Robinson, and the co-founder and CEO Axios, Jim Van de High. So, Jim, we kind of walked right into your column. Let's read from it. It's titled The Rising Democratic MAGA Movement.

You write Democrats needing, quote, their own version of a populist anti-establishment, MAGA-like makeover. So what does that look like, Jim? Yeah, it looks like what you're just talking about with Gavin Newsome, right, trying to adopt a lot of the techniques that you saw from Trump that you've seen from MAGA, get on social media, be a warrior, curse a lot, try to have a lot of edge, insert yourself into the news cycle. I think the bigger part, though, is what you've seen happening in New York, what you've seen happen in Minneapolis, the popularity of Bernie Sanders, the number of people turning out for AOC events, that right now the momentum in the party is very much for the very progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which is not that much of a shock, but I think is probably problematic in the off-year elections for Democrats. It's just not where the vast majority of the country seems to be.

I think it's one of the reasons that the Democratic brand overall. is low. And so I think that's an important thing to watch. And in terms of your conversation about the backlash to the bill, to me, this is going to be a really, really important conversation three months from now. In three months, we're going to know what's happening with redistricting. If Republicans can really rewire the map in a way where they can pick up anywhere from five to ten seats, that is meaningful. That is deeply, deeply meaningful. It's harder in these Democratic states to do it. It's easier in Texas and Republican states to do it. The other is watch the next month.

If inflation does what I think inflation is going to do, it is going to be deeply, deeply problematic for the Republican Party. If you look at what's happening with the stock prices of Chipotle or Sweet Green or any of these restaurants where people take their money when they have a little bit of extra and go and spend it, they're all tanking. If you look at what you're hearing from Home Depot, your Walmarts and others, they're basically saying, listen, we've absorbed as much of a loss as we can from the tariffs. come August, we have to start passing that on to consumers. If that happens, if that happens in

home goods, if that happens in groceries, if that happens in autos, which I think can be the next piece to fall, that is going to make all of this talk about the bill that much more problematic because you're going to say, wait a second, what Joe was saying was right. They legitimately did get a massive tax cut, especially if you're super wealthy or you're running a big company. And a lot of people who are on Medicaid or requiring these government programs. Yes, there's some fraud, but yes, there's a lot of people who are authentically not going to get benefits tomorrow that are getting them today. That's when this becomes much, much more than a sideshow at one specific event. It becomes a deep, deep, systematic problem for the Republican Party. Well, and, and Gene, the problem

is a lot more than this Jay Powell. You look at, well, you look at two things. You look at the jobless claims, which caused somebody to be fired. And then you look at how hot inflation ran last month. I think it was 0.9. They're expecting 0.2 or 0.3. That's really even before you start figuring out if the tariffs are, in fact, going to be passed on. A lot of these stores are going to, you know, give up the ghost and start passing on those tariffs. That's a lot of things happening at the same time. I do want to circle back, though, and just ask a question. Why is it that only progressives can hammer home the fact that Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos should not get massive tax cuts, the biggest tax. I don't understand it. Why are moderate

Democrats? They should lead with that. I'll tell you why, because I'm a conservative. I'm a small C conservative. I am a deficit hawk. I've been a deficit hawk my entire life. And I can tell you, small C conservatives, people that like budgets balance, people, people that actually don't want government to pass the largest spending bills ever, have just seen this Republican Congress, led by the so-called Freedom Caucus, passed the largest spending bill ever, with the biggest tax cuts for billionaires, multinational corporations, and people who run monopolies in Silicon Valley. That is a conservative issue to exploit. That is a centrist issue to exploit. That is a liberal issue. That is a progressive issue.

I don't understand why moderate Democrats can't lead with that as well. Well, it's a good question. I mean, this is not a hanging curveball, right? This is T-ball. It's just sitting there on the T, ready to be knocked out of the park. And so you're right that the Democrats who are connecting and who are breaking through tend to be the progressive wing. Now, message always has a lot to do with Messenger.

and some of the progressives who have broken through are charismatic, talented politicians. Whether or not you believe their views are mainstream, they're good at politics and they're getting the message through. I guess the second thing I would say is that one thing I believe I have learned in the Donald Trump era is that the labels that we use, progressive, modern, conservative, paleo-conservative, those labels are fungible. Those labors, labels don't necessarily apply anymore. So there is a lot that progressives are saying that may really connect with a lot of voters

whom you would not think of as progressive. Now, there are things that progressive say that probably don't connect with those voters. But I think we're, either we need some different labels or we need to just de-emphasize the labels and kind of look at what the message is, how it's connecting, and how other Democrats could make those same connections. Jim, you write in your piece about style and how Democrats are, some of them anyway, trying to adopt almost a Trumpian style of performance and politics. Your bottom line is, though, Trump's suit fits Trump uniquely. Others who try to don it wind up looking like clowns.

I'm thinking back to the 2016 election when Marco Rubio tried that on for a while. Remember that? He tried the tough talk and embarrassed himself there. Gavin Newsom's trying it. But the thing with Governor Newsom, for example, is he can go and fight. You see him in interviews with Hannity. He goes to places that a lot of Democrats don't go and can have those conversations and those debates. So what is that sort of middle ground between not being so performative,

but also showing the kind of fight that Democratic voters are desperate to see right now. Listen, Newsom's a unique political athlete, whether you like him or not. He's very, very good at it. If you listen to him on conservative podcasts, liberal podcasts, he can do what most Democrats, most politicians can't do. He can sort of go toe to toe. He can be edgy. He can do all those things. I'm not sure that's what the American people are looking for, right?

If you fast forward to 2028, my guess is there's going to be an exhaustion with this style of politics, this style of drama, this style of name calls. So just assuming that Trump's tactics will work for you seems like a false assumption. Going back to the point that Eugene was making about this idea of how easy it would be to attack the fact that rich are getting richer. This isn't actually a political argument. It is an empirical argument. There's no doubt that the rich are getting a lot richer, that the poor are not getting that much richer if getting richer at all, that that tax bill undoubtedly favors the most

wealthy. Then you look at your stock market and you say, what's happening? Well, most of the growth in portfolios is coming from your biggest tech companies, the top seven, the Fang companies. Well, who are those? That's your Zuckerbergs of the world, right? That's these big, big companies that are already doing well that are getting massive assistance from the federal government. And the only people who can really invest in a lot of these companies are people who themselves are already rich. If you look at people who have money in 401ks or in the stock market tend to start with a lot of money to begin with. So the rich are going to keep getting richer. This is a fantastic environment if you have money.

There's no doubt about it. And I think that is, then it always sits on top of politics, right? People are always feeling like, is the system rigged, is the system fair? And if somebody's paying a lot more for a car, a lot more for oranges, a lot more for eggs, a lot more for stuff at the next trip to Home Depot, yes, bitterness rises. And it's why, interesting, Eugene talks about there aren't no labels. If you really get the Steve Bannons of the world on true serum, they agree a lot with what Bernie Sanders is saying about the dangers of AI, about the rich getting richer, about some of the dangers

in that bill going after Medicaid. They're not loud about it right now, but make no mistake. When Trump is gone, there's a bigger disconnect there than people realize because the bannons of the world, I would say, are tied more tightly to the. working class because they understand that's why Trump exists today. It might not be Trump's worldview per se, but it certainly is theirs. Well, I mean, Steve Bannon will tell you just that. He's a fan of Lisa Kahn's. He believes like me that monopolies should be broken up. I mean, he believes like me that billionaires should not be getting tax cuts right now while working class

Americans are struggling more and more every day. And, you know, this, The thing is, too, I mean, it is empirical. I mean, we're not talking about opinions here. We're talking about facts. The richest billionaires on the planet are getting a lot richer because of this bill. And working Americans are falling further and further behind. It's not even a close call. Also, again, America's national debt will go up $20 trillion.

over the next decade. $20 trillion. The total national debt for the first 220 years of this republic's existence, $4 trillion. So over 220 years, the United States government accumulated $4 trillion of debt. This Congress, with the bill they just passed, will allow the federal debt to go up five times that much in the next decade. Why did they do it? Because they wanted to give billionaires. They wanted to give multinational corporations. They wanted to give the richest of the rich. They wanted to give monopolists tax cuts. I just say, if you're a Democrat and you're running next year and you can't win in a swing district go into something else like take up water collar painting or something like that willie one one thing i really want to underline that

jim said um donald trump can do donald trump right Gavin newsom can't like it's just like bill clinton could do bill clinton Hillary clinton couldn't it's just like Ronald Reagan could do Ronald Reagan. George H.W. Bush couldn't. Donald Trump's skills are non-transferable. And I think Republicans are starting to find that out on the campaign trail. That's why they lose every year Donald Trump's name's not at the top of the ballot. And as Jim said, someone like Gavin Newsom can do well what he does, which is go sit with Sean Hannity or go sit with Joe Rogan and defend his ideas, but you don't need the performance part of it that again, only Donald Trump can pull off. To Joe's point, Jen, you're running a Democratic campaign right now,

let's just say theoretically, right? You're getting ready. Democrats have been licking their wounds for the last eight or nine months after last November, regrouping a little bit. What is the message for Democrats heading into 2026 and beyond here? I mean, I do think it's about affordability. You know, if you look at the Democrats that are the most popular in the country, it's the Midwest Democratic governors, right? And why are they popular? They're popular because they're getting things done. because they are, even though Tony Evers isn't the flashes guy ever in Wisconsin, he talks to people a lot. They're good communicators within their own states, Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, Tony Evers.

And they are getting stuff done and they talk to people about the issues that affect their everyday lives, right? So I think, I mean, I understand what Jim is saying about the rising Democratic MAGA movement. And that may be a tension in 2028. there'll probably be some, there'll probably be some 20-28ers that are in that, in that lane. But it's not, I don't think that's where, I don't think that's where voters. So I don't think that's the majority of Democrats are either. I think that they are more in a moderate lane, that they're more about this like an affordability message and getting things done, making things, you know, I can't afford my health care. And yet they're giving this, they're giving this away to the, to the wealthiest people in the world and actively making it harder and worse from.

me. You know, it's never been this clear cut. Again, using their own words after the election, they told me they were going to bring the price of butter down. Instead, they gave hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts to Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk. Yeah. I say also, Willie, you know, Republicans love to talk about socialism, right? Oh, look at the tie he's wearing. He's a socialist. Look at the way he walks.

He's a socialist. Look at his dog. He's a Marxist. They're so stupid. Right? Whatever it is. He's wearing his ball cap sideways. He's a Leninist.

The greatest example of socialism that we have before us is what the federal government has done for Silicon Valley over the past 20 years. And that was the big kicker. The richest guy on the planet who's taking bare, the bare essentials away from the poorest of God's children on the planet, he became the richest person on the planet by government welfare, by getting money from the federal government. They all get so much money. These billionaires are like, we're libertarians. Yeah, they're libertarians until they ask for their next billion from the federal government. It's so bogus.

So you've got Republicans that are actually, they're preaching capitalism to poor single moms. And they're practicing socialism with the largest multinational corporations on the planet. It's just absolute nonsense. And this is empirical. As Jim said, this is an opinion? This is empirical. We could get the numbers if people would like. If somebody's federal, we get the numbers of how much the federal government has given Elon Musk

and all these other billionaires through the years. But they get all of the biggest recipients of government corporate welfare. And now on the other side of it, they're libertarians. You say, give us dogs goods. I mean, again, if you can't beat those guys. Holy shit. That's crazy, Willie. And speaking of not being able to beat anybody,

the Red Sox. The Orioles, man. I stayed up awfully late to watch that. And the Yankees, you guys hit like 87-0. I told you're going to win the World Series. We got a tight cluster for the wild card right now. Seattle, us, you guys, but also Guardians, Royals, nipping at our heels a little bit. It's going to be close.

Yankees passed the socks in the standings yesterday. because of their nine home runs and because the Red Sox did something you rarely see in the 7th, 8th, and ninth innings left the bases loaded all three times. No way. All three times to then lose an extra innings and get swept at home

by Jen Palmeris. Nine left on base in the 7th, and I can't do it. This is the Yankees hitting three consecutive home runs in the first inning playing the race at the Yankees spring training facility. It is bizarre. It's a minor park. You know, it's like the emperor said when he was

walking under the Death Star, it's all coming together, as I for say, Yankees and five. And, you know, John, seriously, I'm serious. If we can finish in fourth place this year for the Red Sox, that'll be a good year. Oh, for sure. We were hoping just not to get relegated, which is a new concept in Majority Baseball. So modest expectations this year. You can see it behind the Yankees again. Order has been restored.

I think we're going to be racing for last place with the Orioles. I hope we can squeak it out. But I'm going to move us to the American League Central. Amen. You know what? We're all living in the Brewers world right now anyway. It's not about us anymore. Until they face the Yankees.

Jim Van de High. We'll be reading your piece at Axios. He's a Milwaukee fan. He's a brewer. Yeah, how about the brew crew? They're good. They're great. Very rarely can I say that.

I was there in 1982. So in 1982, my father took us to the first World Series game at County Stadium. And I think for the first time, like, we actually lived. legitimately have a chance to get there. For sure. A great day yesterday with the Cubs, but it's an unbelievable team. It's actually a great, we talked about this before. I think it's a great sport story.

I think it's great organizational story. How if you kind of do the right things, the right way, with the right type of people, you can get stuff done. What's better than that? You know, I mean, classic Midwest understatement. We ask, what about the brewers? He goes, they're good. He wrote the book on Smart Brevity.

That was it right there. Jim, thanks so much. Still ahead on Morning Joe. President Trump is moving forward with plans to set up talks now between Putin and Zelensky but it appears the Kremlin is downplaying the prospects of a bilateral meeting

the latest on that plus the president now going after the Smithsonian Museums for being what he calls woke wait until you hear one comment about slavery. We'll dig into the changes he's demanding and a reminder of the Morning Joe podcast is available

every weekday. Listen wherever you get your podcast You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Governor Dukakis rebuttal. I can't believe I'm losing to this guy. Tell the other stories making headlines this morning. Hurricane Aaron expected to trigger life-threatening conditions from central Florida all the way up to Canada. Officials closing beaches up and down the Atlantic coast with rough waves and rip tides in the forecast.

NASA released footage from the internet. International Space Station showing the massive size of the now Category 2 storm as it barrels north. And check out this video of an Air Force reconnaissance team as it flew directly into the center of that hurricane, passing through the eyewall. The outer band stretched for miles twisting around the center of that storm. Showing just how stupid teenagers are. We would all go out when a hurricane was coming. And we would all go out to Pensacola Beach. Swim out to the sandbar. The waves were huge and we would just body surfing. You'd get out in there. the water. Wow. When we get out because the waves were huge,

right? The waves are huge now. Like, hurricanes come and I tell my kids, I don't want you to go any west of Orlando. Right, right. I need you to stay in Oked Chobie and just

sit this one out, stay away from, but yeah, no, that's best waves. It's also the best undertow. Also the best way to ensure that you die. Yes, it is. So stay out of the water kids. You're a survivor. Stay lesson, learn. Gulf Coast hurricane parties.

Big deal. Yeah, they were. They were a big deal. Here in New York, former governor Andrew Cuomo expects President Trump to inject himself into the race for New York City mayor. According to Politico, Cuomo told the crowd at a Hampton's fundraiser on Saturday.

He, quote, feels good about the prospect of President Trump coming down hard against the Democrat in the race. So Ron Mamdani. publicly, Cuomo has resisted the idea of getting help from Trump. And the words of Aristotle, Jen, this confuses me so much. My teeth hurt. There's so much in this.

What is going on? And then talking about Trump endorsing, also not popular, probably even in the Hamptons. And then, I mean, what? I mean, I'm really wondering what is going on with him. I'm starting to wonder if the Cuomo mayoral campaign is a performance art where he's trying to lose. Because he, I mean, he ran out an extraordinary lackluster primary campaign where he barely actually campaigned. And now he's telling a rich Hampton's crowd. Look, you got to raise money, fine.

But you're telling a rich hampton's crowd that you think Donald Trump's going to come in to attack Mom Dani. And in New York City, you think that's going to hurt Mamdani? That's going to help. But this is strange. You know, he was never Mr. Wonderful, but he kind of knew politics. He really did. So I don't understand. All of the miscues.

You might be kind of broken after everything he's been through. I mean, 30 years ago when he was the secretary of HUD, and I worked with him in the Clinton administration, you know, he was really, really effective, is very effective. Three terms is probably too much. Three terms is probably too long. You go through all everything that he went, you know, like the nursing home thing, the sexual harassment suits, resignation. I don't know. It may. You may come out the other end with not a lot of great judgment.

John, you're the Daily News alum. Does anybody, does any reporter, does any metro reporter in New York City think anybody is going to win other than Mamdami? I mean, or is this race over? It would take something extraordinary for Monadne not to win, especially right now. Like for him to move to France. And even then, but right now, especially with Cuomo and Mayor Adams still in the race,

they're going to split the opposing vote. There's a Republican Curtis Lewell who'll get a little bit of support to. Montani will cruise. If Cuomo or Adams, one of them were to bow out, then the race gets a little more interesting. But even then, Mamdani, he's the Democratic nominee. He has a wave of support behind him. Every poll we see, whether it's a three,

four-way race or even a two-way race, he's still ahead. And Cuomo is just making one mistake after another. And Mom Donnie only hopes that Cuomo's right, that Donald Trump jumps into this race and goes after him. You just wonder, though, how does a Democratic Party, the largest city in America, come up with the people that they came up with for the Democratic primary? People are scared to run in a Democratic primary in New York, right? I mean, I think a pragmatic, moderate Democrat is scared to run a Democratic primary in New York. They got other ways to spend their time than try to go through that. There might have even be an appetite for that, actually, but the two people who stepped up,

you have the incumbent mayor who, of course, is scandal-scarred to say the least and is perceived by most to be in the pockets of Donald Trump. And then you have Cuomo who had to resign and now has run what is simply a textbook terrible campaign. and Mamdani is something new. I think people saw Cuomo's name. They go, oh, yes again, and he momdani emerged from that. And even if you don't love all of Mamdani's ideas, the way he's communicated them has been very effective. He's run a very smart campaign.

Willie, I am a bit of a legal expert. I think you know that. I watched every episode of Matlock. I've watched reruns of Perry Mason for years now. Breaking down on the stand, it's really incredible. Perry gets them to do that. But in all, in all, I even saw murder she wrote, just on the investigative side of this, Angela Lansbury. Wow.

A lot of people die in Cabotov. What do? It's a small place. And it's just like, and yet, and yet, despite my expertise, I have never seen happen what happened in Georgia courtroom yesterday. This is a real emotional roller coaster, buckle up. A judge in Georgia made a huge mistake, misreading the verdict for a man accused of murder at first saying the man was guilty. The verdict, we the jury find the defendant guilty as to all six counts of the bill of indictment. Wait, what?

Did I say not? No. No. We the jury find the defendant not guilty on all six counts. all six counts. No. No. No. Your honor. The judge then apologized for what he called it. I hope he did.

Here's what he called. So you are going to ride the Latin Rail in southern Georgia's toughest penitrant. And may you suffer as badly? Oh, wait a second. I think of on. The judge called it a quote mispronunciation. No. No, no. You said the wrong one. It was a

50-50 proposition. The defendant was facing six counts, including three murder charges for the 2022 killing of a Fulton County deputy. Very serious case. Oh, my God. He testified that he acted in self-defense. So again, he's not guilty. Wait, what? I mean, the jurors.

Wait, what? Wow. Coming up. We'll bring you the latest on the war in Ukraine as Russia continues to launch strikes, and President Trump tries to secure a peace agreement. Morning Joe's coming right back. This morning, Russia is downplaying the prospect of a face-to-face meeting between Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. President Trump has been pushing for in-person negotiations following his meetings with the two leaders.

The White House says Putin has agreed to begin the next phase of the peace process, but Russia's foreign minister is suggesting a bilateral or trilateral meeting will not. be happening anytime soon, saying, quote, any contacts involving the heads of state need to be thoroughly prepared. Just like the Alaska meeting and the meeting of the White House yesterday. You know, it took, my God, it took a lunchtime to plan those two. Took a minute. Yeah. Just needed to find the red carpet, roll it out from Putin. A Russian representative for the United Nations echoed that sentiment telling the BBC, nobody had rejected the opportunity for direct talks, but it should not be a meeting for the sake of a meeting. Last night, though, President Trump told a conservative radio host, plans for meeting are in the works.

I had a very successful meeting with President Putin. I had a very successful meeting with President Zelensky, and now I thought it would be better if they met without me, just to see. I want to see what goes on. They had a hard relationship, very bad, very bad relationship. And now we'll see how they do. And if necessary, and it probably would be, but if necessary, I'll go and I'll probably be able to get it closed. I just want to see what happens at the meeting. So they're in the process of setting it up, and we're going to see what happens. John, remember a couple weeks ago he got angry at Putin?

Because he said he was pushing me off. He was tapping him along. He was tapping him along, right? I mean, you know, it's going to be interesting to see. He's done Alaska. He's done the White House, a historic meeting at the White House. House, can be very curious to see if Russia continues this, dragging their feet while they continue to kill children, while they continue to kill grandmoms, while they continue to, you know,

Putin is the biggest kidnapper in the world right now with all the children he's kidnapped. And, you know, basically thumbing his nose at the First Lady and her letter and her police, it's going to be curious to see what happens over the next, let's say, seven to ten days of Russia really does drag their feet. Well, everything Russia has done in the last year, when they've even nodded towards negotiations or nodded towards a settlement, has been an effort to buy more time. Right. That there is a sense in the Kremlin, per intelligence analysts, that Putin thinks he is still making slow, but steady progress, and that he is not willing to give up this war. So he is trying to push the deadlines down so we can try to get plenty

more land. So there was a sense that when President Trump threatened the sanctions, put the secondary sanctions on India and then said more were coming, but that was partially what pushed Putin to go to Alaska. To get moving. So now the question is, is Trump going to do that again? The Europeans, that was one of their major messages on Monday. It's like, don't take the sanctions off the table, have that threat handy because we want Putin's going to need an impetus to come back to the table. And Willie, you know, there are a lot of people talking about who has cards, who's not playing cards. I heard some people over the weekend said Vladimir Putin is the only one person that met But no, no, it's Donald Trump.

Donald Trump has the cards. He has the cards with, first of all, with sanctions. He can just say, hey, Lindsay, go ahead. Let's pass the sanctions bill. And let's grind him down. And the second thing is, you know, there was talk about a possible $90 billion military aid bill to Ukraine. There's two things that would change the dynamics very quickly.

So Vladimir Putin can huff and puff and say he's going to blow the house down all he wants. He's not holding the cards. Donald Trump's holding the cards right now. to be very interesting to see if he'll play them over the next 10 days. Yet, as you say, he continues even during these meetings to attack Ukraine, to go into urban centers and civilian targets.

Let's bring into the conversation, former spokesperson for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, Hagar Shemali. She also worked at the National Security Council and the Treasury Department. Hagar, always good to see you. So we're now 48 hours after that extraordinary summit of the West, effectively,

at the White House. What is the state of play, as you see it right now? as many people have pointed out, peace deal is sort of an awkward term in this circumstance because Vladimir Putin's not interested in peace. He wants land. Right. No, he's definitely not interested in peace. And we know that. And I think, I don't think it's that the Trump administration doesn't know that or President Trump doesn't know that. He knows he's dealing with a thug. It's that right or wrong, he views the situation like a businessman would, not necessarily as a foreign policy expert would. He sees that

Ukraine doesn't have the ability to completely defeat Russia, and Europe and the United States are not willing to give Ukraine all the aid it needs, all at once, in order to defeat Russia the way it should. And by the way, that's been the case for three years now. And so given that mathematical equation, he's thinking, let's cut a deal. That would be better, right? It's not, it's not about preventing Putin from invading his neighbors again. We should all remember, for example, that Russian troops still occupy 20% of Georgia. They invaded Moldova. This is Putin's behavior over the last two decades.

There is no reason to believe that he's going to change that. What I see and what's important is that you see this evolution in President Trump that has changed dramatically over the last six months or since January, really, right? And since that disastrous meeting that you had in the Oval Office between Zelensky and Trump. And so now you see Trump shifting. He's willing to impose costs on Putin that he wasn't willing to before. The secondary sanctions you mentioned on India is significant. India was importing 1% of Russian oil before the war, and now it's 42%. And so he's imposing a cost. And that's a language Putin understands. He also offers a carrot to Putin that Biden couldn't write, these photo ops and this legitimacy that Putin seeks. I don't like it. But he offers that to Putin. And you see Trump shifting on the question of security guarantees for Ukraine. So when you see that, even if they go back to war, which is likely, you're going to see it's if they're inching toward at least something where they're going to reach some kind of it.

Well, and the question is about the photo op. You're right. A lot of people didn't like the photo op. The question is, what was in his mind when he did the photo op? Did he say, I'm going to pull him back. We're going to talk to him because isolating him hasn't worked. Then we're going to get together with the Europeans. We're going to do a strong security guarantee, which, you know, the Europeans are talking about Article 5 and talking about a native. type a plan. And so we're through the second phase of it. If the third phase is tough sanctions and a big military bill to support Ukraine, then, you know, I think there is a better possibility that Putin comes to the table. Because again, talk about, you know, Russia, we always puff up Russia. We did it during the Soviet Union. And they collapsed from.

within. We did it. You can go back to the war with Japan. We did it there. The war with Finland, we did it there over and over again. So, so talk about the possibilities of what, how this goes right. I'm not saying it's going to go right. Chances are good. It won't. But, but what do you see is the best way forward? So, you know, you mentioned a really important point, Joe, which is that since the Cold War, since the end of the Cold War, Democrats and Republicans alike have both really sought to work with post-Cold War Russia, and each have had hopes.

And many times those hopes have been dashed and dissatisfied. Right. Right. Every side has been disappointed. Every leader has been disappointed. And there's no reason to think that's going to change now unless you have regime change. And I don't want to tell that. I've seen that in a lot of opinion pieces lately, right? The only way this is going to happen is regime change. Regime change is not going to happen.

Are you doing that regime change? regime change in Russia? Yeah. And I want to, and I want to just know what's more frightening than Vladimir Putin running Russia? Some of the nationalists that would take his place. Of course. And I haven't talked to many people across Europe that aren't afraid of what follows Vladimir. As bad as he is, we, you know, there was one guy that wanted to take over Russia that, you know, tried to do it, what, last summer, summer before? I mean, I think, you know, I'm a believer having worked on a lot of countries where you have a dictatorship, it's very hard for a dictator to fall. And you always have that risk of what comes next, right?

We're seeing it in Syria now where it's very unclear, the terrorists in the suit, what happens there, right? But to get back to your question about what are the positive ways, what can we look forward to, the security guarantees for Ukraine, however they shape that, whether, and they're getting creative, right, whether it's like you said, a NATO-like offer or, or if Putin tries to invade, then there's a snap into NATO membership, right? All these creative ways of thinking about it. These are guarantees that are long overdue. These are guarantees that really should have been made since 1996 when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons under a deal

that was brokered, by the way, between the United States and Russia. And so that's a positive outlook. I just, when it comes to land, this is what concerns me the most. And the reason I say that is because I look at Georgia as a precedent. And the whole world has accepted that Russia occupies 20% of Georgia that happens to be eerily similar to the amount of land that Russia wants from Ukraine, not that they control all of it, by the way. Putin is out there demanding 20% of Ukrainian land without fully controlling it even. And so this is where, you know, I think this is going to be something for the long term. So as Russia continues to launch those attacks in Ukraine killing civilians, Moscow also carrying out sabotage operations in Western nations.

For a closer look at that, let's bring in NBC News international correspondent, Raff Sanchez, he joins us from London. Raff, what more can you tell us about this? So, Willie, ever since the start of Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Western officials have accused Russia of carrying out a widespread campaign of sabotage here in Europe. It's sometimes called gray zone warfare. It's sometimes called hybrid warfare. It takes different forms, everything from cyber attacks to targeting critical infrastructure.

But now NATO officials say Russia has a new, tactic, hiring criminals in Western countries to carry out acts of sabotage. In the darkness of a London night, masked men creep through an industrial park. They pour gasoline outside a warehouse and set it ablaze. Just stand back from there, mate. British police arrive on the scene to find the flame spreading. The two masked men sprinted through the complex, fleeing the scene, first jumping over this fence and then running to a getaway car that was waiting right here.

But what at first looked like a simple case of arson and a run-down industrial park turned out to be part of an international conspiracy. The warehouse belonged to a Ukrainian firm sending aid and Starlink dishes back to Ukraine. Police quickly arrested a group of low-level British gangsters. But on the ringleader's phone, they found hundreds of messages from a Russian intelligence operative,

offering money and ideological encouragement to start the fire, telling him, you are our dagger in Europe, and to watch the spy show the Americans. This work can be too much for people. Because he was now a Russian secret agent. Three gang members were convicted in a UK court last month. Two others pled guilty. But Western officials say they found similar plots across Europe, where the Kremlin hires local criminals to carry out its covert dirty work. It's a relatively new thing to see criminal proxies used on behalf of foreign states.

of the internet age, that somebody can reach out from a foreign country directly into an individual sitting in their bedroom here in the United Kingdom. Poland accuses Russia of remotely recruiting criminals to start this fire in Warsaw, which burned down the country's biggest shopping mall. While in the Czech Republic, a Colombian man was sentenced to eight years in prison for arson, also allegedly on Kremlin orders. Russia denies all responsibility, including in the case in London, where its embassy said Russia has never engaged in sabotage activities against the United Kingdom and has no intention of doing so.

The Russians have carried out sabotage operations in this country. That is clear, we have clear evidence of it. Calvin Bailey is a British member of Parliament and sits on the Defence Committee. Why would Russia hire criminals to carry out these kinds of attacks? So if you can encourage and incentivize people, either through money or through the prospect of a legal, their previous criminal record, then, like, that creates distance and separation because, well, it was just a criminal that did that act. This has nothing to do with us. It gives Russia kind of plausible deniability.

Absolutely. That deniability helped by encrypted apps and cryptocurrency. It hides the trail, be that a money trail or any of the connections. Analysts call it a kind of gig economy, where Russia can hire criminals for one-off operations. Usually less sophisticated than those carried out by professional agents, but also less risky. In 2018, the UK accused Russia of using chemical weapons on British soil in a failed attempt to kill a Russian spy who defected to the West, sparking major diplomatic fallout. This action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian state.

Meanwhile, UK police say the London gang was caught before they could carry out their next plot. kidnapping a Russian dissident and torching his Michelin-starred restaurant. Part of a new reality where any criminal with enough greed in a smartphone can offer their services to an enemy state. And that group of British gangsters will be sentenced here at the old Bailey criminal court a little later this year. Now, according to one analysis, Russia's sabotage attack campaign appears to actually be slowing this year

compared to last year. There's lots of possible explanations for that. But one of them is that Putin may be trying to lower the temperature as he waits to see what he can get out of these negotiations with President Trump over the future of Ukraine. And if that is true, it of course implies that he could ratchet these attacks back up if he doesn't get what he wants. It's a fascinating look at that. NBC's Ralph Sanchez in London, Raf, thanks so much, Hagar. You were watching that sort of nodding along saying, yes, this sounds familiar. It sounds right. We've heard other states do this as well. Oh, yeah. It didn't surprise me at all, unfortunately.

It's not just that Russia is not the only one who's been engaging in this kind of behavior. They've always been known to hire mercenaries, prisoners, convicts. They've been doing that not just for Ukraine, but for their wars around the world, for being infiltrated in Africa. They poisoned dissidents around the world, for example, doesn't matter where they are. You also see that's just a page out of Iran's playbook. China's playbook, by the way, Iran's seeking to assassinate individuals here, hiring murders for hire, but not Iranian individuals.

murders for hire to assassinate, for example, women's rights activist, Masil and Injad, or the Chinese having a dissident police station in the Lower East Side, and where they went, and not only do they intimidate and harass Chinese Americans, they went and they sabotage a Chinese artist's installation in Nevada. I mean, this is part of a dictator playbook, and they do it in part to scare people and intimidate them or to seek a specific goal, in this case in the UK, it was to actually destroy military aid that was headed for Ukraine, but it's also to send a message that they are around the world, they don't care about borders, they will export their repression and thuggery behavior no matter where it is.

And so returning to the conflict now, and this is obviously a sign. They view this is a larger, this is just about Ukraine even. It's about Russia versus the West. It's about restoring the old Russian Empire, but also their way, sort of their way of life. So as you see this, what could be done here, beyond sanctions, beyond a weapons guarantee, to actually bring Putin back to the table. because right now, to Joe's point, Trump does probably, if someone has the cards, it's him. But to this point, he's been pretty reluctant to play them.

Yeah, the most, the only language that a dictator like Putin understands. And this is the case with most dictators is, is, they have to understand that whatever they're doing is too costly, that the cost is too much. And it, and it's not just sanctions, usually, by the way. That's why, why do you see the Iranian regime right now sitting licking its wounds? It's because they faced actual military engagement from not just, Israel, but from the United States. Now, I'm not saying that Trump should go threaten military engagement, by the way. I don't think that's realistic. I don't think that makes sense right now for U.S. foreign policy. But that is technically the only language they understand, which is why

I go back to that question of security guarantees, at the very least, that beefing up of NATO, that feeling that you know, you cannot touch this. We're going to make this too costly for you. It's going to be too many body bags. It's too much money lost. That's we, you, Russia, you could also lose land. That's, they need to understand that cost. And Gene, I remember when, when Putin invaded Ukraine, we heard all the people saying, he's a madman, he's crazy, he's it, yeah. I was like, no, actually, actually he looked at how the United States and the West responded over the past 20 years and he just took what he considered to be a very logical strategic step. He's thinking, Well, I invaded Georgia in 2008, and George W. Bush didn't do anything. The West didn't do anything. I invaded Ukraine and shot down a commercial aircraft and took over Crimea. Barack Obama didn't do anything. Hell, he wouldn't even send defensive weapons for a while. Donald Trump became president. And, you know, he agreed with me more than his own intel agency.

So after 20 years of that, why wouldn't he think the West would just roll over and play dead? Again, instead of doing the very things that send a message to a dictator, which is you step over that line, you're going to pay a price, and it's not going to be worth whatever land you pick up. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, he had no reason to think he would meet the kind of resistance he did meet. I think he believed the West would never unite, that Europe would never effectively do anything that the Ukrainians would be pushovers and that the United States would just sit by and watch, as frankly it had done in the past.

And he was wrong. He was wrong on those counts. And remember, he invaded. He was going to be in Kiev within the week, certainly. and, you know, he's a long way from Keefe. He's not going to get there. So it was a miscalculation, but how to get him to stop, how to get him out, how to get Ukraine back its sovereign territory. That's a question that still hasn't been answered.

And we haven't seen the kind of resolve right now that I think would end this war. But we'll see. we'll see yeah we'll see i i do want to say there have been great costs for this invasion you know right now we we we look at what he continues to do and it it sort of stops us from taking a view a 30,000 foot view think about it i mean of course a million casualties his attempt to spike the russian economy is falling flat now growth is down to 1%, debt is exploding in Russia, interest rates over 20% in Russia. Europe showed a unified resistance to him that nobody expected.

I remember the beginning weeks of the war, all of us being shocked at what we were hearing out of Germany, what we were hearing out of France, what we were hearing even out of Japan. Everybody talking about they're going to, we're now, we have. European leaders who forever resisted paying 2% of their GDP, now saying, we're going to 5% of our GDP on military spending. And again, even people like George Maloney, who many feared, would be the most right-wing, most nationalist, most pro-Putin person saying, we have to provide Article 5 like assurances. I mean, the way. world has shifted under Vladimir Putin's feet. Things have changed quite dramatically up to now.

And if the next two to four weeks are handled in a way by the White House that puts his feet to the fire, there could be some significant long-term costs, right? Yes. I don't, and I don't want to underestimate how much cost a dictator can withstand because they shield. themselves often, right? But the costs would be significant. Actually, it's the last point, I think, that you made, or the last few points you made that are the most significant about the unity that you're seeing in Europe. The point about the 5% is actually really important. That's only this year that happened. And so you saw that not only did NATO expand in its membership and unite after the invasion of Ukraine three years ago, but now the fact that this year you

had European allies, many of whom couldn't even meet their previous 2% commitment, where they had to commit, that's 2% of their GDP toward their defense. And I, and we have to give that. That's credit to President Trump, by the way. That's what he forced their hand because he said, I'm not willing to be the person to, the U.S. is not going to be the one day. It's a win that he got. By the way, you just brought up.

And that every president has wanted, by the way. You brought up something that Admiral Stravetus and other people that have worked in this space forever were the most excited about, and that is Sweden, Finland, eight, as we heard in the White House the other day, 800 miles of border that a NATO country now has because of this war. I mean, strategically, as Admiral Stravita said, you know, the Baltic has been turned into a NATO lake. Yeah.

I think there's a lot of, that's why I say, and I said this earlier this morning, I'm not optimistic. I just have hope for these steps. that I see progressing, the end will never be perfect. It just won't. So long as Putin is in power, you're not going to see something that is a perfect end where Ukraine has all of its borders clean and clear and sovereign. And I'm not pushing for that.

What you have to push for is that Putin never invades another neighbor again, that Ukraine be as protected as possible and that Putin learns his lesson. Well, you talk to European leaders. They'll say, this isn't about Ukraine. This is about Europe. We have to hold the line in Ukraine for the sake of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, all of central and eastern Europe. So, anyway, thanks so much for being with us. We greatly appreciate it as always.

Thank you for having me. All right.