Morning Joe - Supreme Court lifts limits on roving immigration patrols in Los Angeles area

Episode Date: September 9, 2025

Supreme Court lifts limits on roving immigration patrols in Los Angeles area

Get this broadcasters were asked not to show anyone booing Trump. In fact, they even made an announcement at the event, but I'm not sure it worked. Take a look at this. Ladies and gentlemen, when we introduce the president, please refrain from the following. Booing, hissing, jeering, mocking, taunting, screaming you suck, flipping the bird, flipping the double bird, chin flicking Italian style, mooning, throwing beers, throwing honey deuses, and chanting Kang Kulls, now please welcome President Trump. Release the law, messy.

Oh, crap. You can't try. Try everything. Of course. That is the tonight show's take on President Trump's appearance at the U.S. open on Sunday. And speaking of the Epstein files, the Wall Street Journal continues to lead the way on the story. The paper has new reporting on a lewd note.

President Trump is alleged to have sent Jeffrey Epstein for his 50. birthday. It's included in the new documents released yesterday by the Republican-led House Oversight Committee. We're going to go through that reporting, the response from the White House, and what could come next. A lot going on with that. All right. Good morning and welcome to morning, Joe. It is Tuesday, September 9th. Joe, there's a lot going on, and we'll get to the Epstein, this, I guess, birthday note in just a moment. Right. Yeah. Yeah, a lot going on. There's also, of course, Supreme Court ruling, a lot of things still sort of percolating

under the surface in Chicago. Willie, not percolating NFL football, the last two late-night games, late night for us, because, of course, we watch Willa Fortune, and we have crackers and milk and then go to bed at 6.30. But for those that, for those that stay up longer than that, the last two nights have had two incredible games, two barn burners to start the season last night, no exception. Yeah, the Sunday night here, I actually went to bed, assuming the Ravens had won, bills come back at home, win a classic. And then last night, J.J. McCarthy, who was a rookie last year, but didn't play because

he was hurt, leading in his first game in the NFL as a starter, a comeback for the Minnesota Vikings to beat the Chicago Bears. Again, bears look like they had the game in hand at home. McCarthy leads them down the field and ultimately runs in. the winning touchdown. So a lot of hopes in Minnesota pinned on this quarterback out of Michigan. And, man, he made a lot of Vikings fans happy last night. Vikings beat the Bears in Chicago. There's the touchdown right here. Look at that. All right. Well, I'm sure they're glad to have J.J. McCarthy back. We will see what happens when they play teams other than the Chicago Bears. So Mika, we're going to be starting with the Supreme Court

ruling that I've got to say really caught me off guard. It's only, it's only temporary right now, but the decision was basically made that, that ICE officers can stop people for the crime of being Hispanic. Despite the fact in 1975, the court ruled that if you were a Mexican, police officers couldn't stop you for just expecting that you were Mexican. So, yeah, this is, this is, this is crossing a line, and it is only temporary, but you do wonder why in America you would have six Supreme Court justices saying it's okay to stop somebody and search them. Right.

And that's not a violation of the United States Constitution or the constitutional rights because they speak Hispanic or because they may have a situation. certain job. So that's where we are. This is where we stand right now. Let's dig into it. The Supreme Court blocked a lower court ruling that restricted the ability of federal officers to conduct immigration stops in Los Angeles. The high court's decision puts a hold on a July ruling that said immigration agents could not stop people purely because of their race or ethnicity, because they speak Spanish or because of their work or the places they congregate. The ruling drew a harsh rebuke from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic to serve on the court who wrote in

part, we should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost. I dissent. She would, was joined in dissent by the court's two other liberal justices. Speaking to NBC's Von Hilliard at the White House, border czar Tom Holman praised the decision and defended ICE actions. Is racial profiling justified? There's no racial profile?

Are you encouraging your agents to racially profile individuals in this country? It's part of their immigration enforcement. Of course, that's not so legal. We're not racial profile either. You're not using race. You're not using race to justify. I just said we had to establish reasonable suspicion. That's the legal complaint.

So can you clarify what that looks like? There's a mirror of the factors. I trust the professionals of the board, children of ICE, all very well trained to make sure they establish reasonable suspicion to briefly detain and question somebody in the Supreme Court agree. You know, Willie, in her dissent, Justice Sotomayor, talked about the indignity of, of Hispanics having to carry around documentation just to prove that they're Americans are

just to prove that they're in this country legally. Think of that for a second. Hispanics now have good reason to have to carry around documentation so they won't be stopped by ICE and who knows what happens after that. Think about all the horror stories. And as for Brett Kavanaugh, I'm not exactly sure. if cable got disconnected in his office over the past six, nine months. But this is what Justice Kavanaugh said,

justifying the stopping of somebody just because they look Hispanic or just because they may speak with an accent. Kavanaugh writes, as for stops of those individuals who are legally in the country, the questioning in those circumstances is typically brief. And those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers, after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U.S. citizens are otherwise legally in the United States, a justice for the Supreme Court saying the burden is on the person for being guilty of being a Hispanic, basically, in the eyes. of ice. And so because they are Hispanic, because they may speak with an accent, they can be stopped now in the United States of America by law enforcement officers and then have to justify it. And also, let's focus on what Kavanaugh said. We said the stops are typically brief, no problem

at all. How many horror stories have we heard of U.S. citizens, of people with green cars, of people here legally being thrown in to ICE detention centers, being arrest, being harassed. I mean, can you imagine, could any of us imagine, going to work, being late to a kid's baseball game, being late going to church, like, you know, trying to get to an appointment on time, trying to pick up kids from child care, trying to get a grandmother out of a doctor's appointment at time, and being stopped for, 20, 30 minutes, an hour, an hour and a half, because you're Hispanic. That's what this Supreme Court ruled yesterday. Temporarily or not, it's surprising to say the least. That's an understatement that six justices from the United States Supreme Court would say this sort of racial profiling was protected by the Constitution of the United States because it's not. And it blocked that U.S. Dictor court ruling that was clearly saying, we do not want to live in a country where you can

stop people based on their race, their ethnicity, the language they're speaking, or the kind of work they're doing. For example, if you're a day laborer, we're going to stop you and just make sure that we check your papers. This is a dangerous road to go down. Let's bring in NBC News Senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainslie, former U.S. Attorney and MSNBC contributor Barbara McQuaid and New York Times opinion columnist David French. Good morning to all. Julie, I'll start with you here at the table with us. What has been the reaction in Los Angeles, in Southern California, and frankly, places across the country where people, Latino, Latino women are going to work, as Joe said, taking their kids to school, now stop and think, which way do I go? Are there ICE agents around? Well, there's

certainly people in Boston and Chicago who are worried about this ruling because we know those are two cities that are going to be targeted next by ICE enforcement. And I have to say, Willie, even though this ruling came down from the district in July, since then, there were incidents that seemed to violate it. If you think about that Operation Trojan horse where the Border Patrol agents jumped out of a Penskew rental truck and a Home Depot parking lot in Los Angeles, that seemed like a random profiling sweep, yet that came after this order. In D.C., I talked to parents who were worried to take their kids to school because two or three parents in their neighborhood had been arrested just to that week. And they were really worried about being

stopped for no other reason other than being Hispanic. And so there was already this fear. And now the Supreme Court has said they can go back to those policies. It also, frankly, we have some original reporting now that shows that this is part of a practice where they are no longer, they no longer have to do their homework. They used to have to fill out this form. This has been in place since at least 2007, where they would say the name, the address, the person they were going after, more information, do they have a criminal history, are their children in the home? Now they've scrapped that. Under this administration, they no longer need to fill out those forms. They thought it was getting in the way. They thought it was bringing down their arrest

numbers. And so what this means now is that they're able to go out to places where they don't know anything about the person that they're stopping. They used to have to get approval from a supervisor. And yes, maybe in the course of an operation, they might encounter someone who is undocumented. But now they can begin an operation without knowing anything about their target. And I think that's really telling about what we've already seen and especially about these efforts that are about to ramp up. And leaving it to the discretion of an ICE agent of someone who looks illegal to them and who they can stop and then question. So Barbara, Joe just read from the decision here, Justice Sotomayor saying this in the dissent, we should not live in a

country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job. Were you surprised by this ruling from the Supreme Court? Yes, very much so, because it flies in the face of Supreme Court precedent. Since 1975, racial profiling has been illegal in this country. There's a case there that is a landmark case that is taught in criminal procedure classes, including mine, called United States v. Brignoni Ponce. And in that case, Border Patrol agents who were conducting roving patrols in Southern California were said to be in violation of the law when they were stopping people based on appearance alone. And so since that time, there has been a ban on racial profiling in immigration enforcement. Now this decision

says that they can do it based on appearance alone. That is a shocking change in the way we have always understood the law. The other thing that's troubling about this decision is they don't explain why. How is it that they are making this decision that flies in the face of prior precedent? We don't know because this is another case on the shadow docket. Yeah, you know, David French, I always have joked that I've spent my adult life being a political psychiatrist, telling everybody that everything is going to be okay. The subset of that over the past six months has been saying, you know, the Supreme Court decision that you just heard about the headline overstates the case. The lead really overstates the case. Go down three or four

paragraphs and you really figure out what's going on here. It's not as bad as it seems in many cases. In this case, I'm going to leave it to you to be my Supreme Court psychologist and tell me why I shouldn't be deeply disturbed by the fact that even temporarily six justices of the United States Supreme Court said it's all right to stop a Hispanic person who may not have a job at a hedge fund and may have an accent because they and their family pursued the American dream and came to this country legally. Well, I think the court isn't exactly saying that. Essentially what the court is saying.

And again, it's absolutely correct to say, well, we don't really know what the court's opinion is here, why it's reaching the conclusion that it's reaching because it hasn't written fully about it. But from what we can discern, the ruling here is not that there's cartons. Blanche. The ruling is that the injunction is lifted, but here's the subtle nuance here, and that you can still, if you're subjected to a constitutional violation, you still have a remedy. You still have an ability, say, to sue the government. But the problem here is if you zoom back and you look more broadly at Supreme Court precedent in this area, you find that

the Supreme Court has actually narrowed the ability to sue the government. So while the court isn't really saying you're free to violate the Constitution. What the court is actually saying is if the government violates the Constitution, you have other remedies other than an injunction looking at the Kavanaugh opinion, for example. The actual reality is when you zoom back, those other remedies may turn out not to be effective at all. And that's where you, I think, might see a disconnect between the Supreme Court's ruling and the actual facts on the ground. Well, David, and also the Supreme Court often will say, all right, the lower court, David French, the lower court has made this decision. We're not exactly sure what we're going to do.

We're going to get sent it back down to them for clarification. But often they let the lower court ruling stand, but they will ask for clarification or one or two points. Here, they stopped it, sent it back and said police officers, ICE officers, stop these people all at once? Any idea why they would have chosen that route, again, a route that seems to fly in the face of a 1975 Supreme Court precedent? I think if you're going to be looking at it, the court would be saying what we're doing is we're stopping an injunction. We're not creating an atmosphere of constitutional impunity because there still are these damages that you can get if your rights have been violated. And so I think

that the court isn't necessarily saying, no, go ahead. and violate people's rights and saying, no, the administration still has to comply with the law. And if they don't, here's this remedy versus just carte blanche the administration. And I think that's the nuance here. But the concern that I have is this is not an administration that acts in good faith. And so I think the reality is, and the reality on the ground is you're granting an immense permission structure to this administration to violate the law. And the court might still be treating this administration as if it complies in good faith with court rulings. And I'm in court precedent. And I just think that that's, there's very little evidence that this

administration operates in good faith in regarding the law at all. It's just not a normal administration. Okay. So, Julia, you mentioned Chicago in Boston, set the scene for us of what's going to be happening and what's happening in those cities. Well, they're ramping up. And first, it seems that we're seeing a lot more really the theater than we are of the arrest so far. We haven't gotten a lot of details on exactly who's been arrested overnight. And usually they'll come out with a rap sheet of the worst of the worst. And then we try to find out, okay, how many people actually had a criminal background. Of course, you saw that, you know, the superimposed picture of Trump doing chipocalypse now trying to look tough in front of Chicago. What we understand is they're building

an operation in Chicago where they're going to use a naval base just north of the city. They're bringing in four to 500 agents and officers, not just from ICE, but from Border Patrol, from law enforcement across the country. That could be DEA, ATF, and they're going to be concentrating their operations. What I understand, really what they would typically do over three months within a three-week period. Similar in Boston, they're going to bring people in there, try to really make a splash. They're picking sanctuary cities on purpose. Tom Homan, who Von Hillier talked to there, has always really had a thorn in his side. The thorn in his side is sanctuary cities. because he says that they stand in the way when they don't cooperate with ice.

But in reality, if you're going to look at cities where you would want to crack down on crime or you would want to go after large immigrant populations, they're not just in blue cities. A lot of them are in red states, but these cities have been targeted on purpose really to show the full force of what ice can do, especially when they have the gloves, the handcuffs taken off of them with rulings like this, with new policies, like not having to fill out a form before they go arrest somebody. So I think we're going to see a ramping up of arrest. and particularly of people who might fit a certain profile.

Right. And then those arrested don't always get deported. Sometimes they find out they have a perfectly legal right to be here and they get released later. Right. Joe. Hey, Julie, I want to circle back on a couple different stories and get your insight and your expertise. Of course, a couple of days ago,

we got the news that the administration blew up a boat of people, killed a boat of people claiming that they were gang members. of course, haven't seen really any evidence of that. But basically, they trust me. So the policy there was kill first and hope nobody asks any questions later. I'm just curious, their track record on properly identifying who is a gang member and who is not a gang member, now that they're just killing people and claiming their gang members without any evidence at all. I'm curious, at the end of the day, after we had all of the court hearings, after we had people pushed on to a train and shipped off to El Salvador.

And after we were told that they were all hardened gang members, I've seen press reports that up to 75, 80 percent of those people were not gang members and never even committed a crime in the United States, a violent or the type of crime that the White House claimed was responsible for them being shipped off to one of the most notorious prisons in this hemisphere. I'm curious, what was your reporting on how many of those that were rounded up, grabbed off the street, thrown into a plane, and flown to El Salvador while courts were telling the administration to stop? How many of those ended up actually being, quote, gang members based on your reporting? Yeah, well, the problem is, Joe, not only do we not know

exactly how many people went to Seekot, that prison you're talking about in El Salvador, because it was never broken down for us. But we also are never going to be able to know the criminal history of those people because they weren't brought back to the United States for due process. They were put onto this plane. We now know that the Venezuelans that were in Sikod have been sent back to Venezuela. Salvadorans remain. They're in the custody of their own country now.

But what this sets up is really a pattern where you don't have to establish criminality or due process for these people. And so we saw in some cases, they accidentally put women on those planes that Buckele sent back saying, I don't accept women here. They put an openly gay hairdresser who was trying to escape persecution in Venezuela when he came to the United States. He was sent to Seacot and has alleged a lot of abuse there. We know about, of course, Abrago Garcia, who was sit there despite a 2019 court order saying that he could not be deported to El Salvador. We now understand he may face deportation to Eswatini. All of this comes back to not only could these people not be established as members of this class. They were identified as a foreign terrorist organization that were going to be deported.

But the administration never did that. And that's why a circuit court judge said these people that said Nazis were treated better than these people. Because at least under the Alien Enemies Act and the way it was used during World War II, if someone was going to be classified as a Nazi, they got the opportunity to defend themselves. In this case, they didn't have the opportunity to defend themselves that they weren't gang members. And the big piece of this conversation that I feel like no one's having is say they were the worst criminals. Right. Is this cruel and unusual punishment?

Are we now departing from the point where we don't care what happens to someone once we paint them with a certain brush? NBC's Julia Ainsley, thank you for your coverage. The exclusive NBC News Report, she co-authored, is available to read online right now. And still ahead on Morning, Joe, we're going to dig into the new reporting surrounding the, Jeffrey Epstein files what information was released and what comes next. You're watching morning, Joe. We'll be right back. Sun coming up over the United States Capitol, 623 in the morning.

The House Committee investigating the Jeffrey Epstein case released a trove of documents yesterday, including an explicit drawing and note signed Donald, allegedly sent to Epstein more than two decades ago, part of a so-called birthday book to celebrate Epstein's 50th birthday. That was in 2003. The message ends with this, quote, a pal is a wonderful thing. Happy birthday, and may every day be another wonderful secret. President Trump has denied he wrote the letter and is calling it a fake, the Wall Street Journal, first to report the letter's existence. President Trump since has sued the paper, its publisher and two reporters. NBC News has not independently verify the journal's reporting. And Trump administration officials have said the signature does not

match the president. Following the release, the journal published a piece comparing the signature on that birthday book letter to other uncontested Trump signatures. In response, White House press secretary Caroline Levitt posted on social media claiming the journal's own reporting proves Trump did not sign the letter. Vice President J.D. Vance, meanwhile, called it a smear on Trump perpetrated by Democrats, referring to the letter as, quote, BS. The birthday book was by far the most revealing of the records made public from that subpoena that the Republican-led House Oversight Committee sent to Epstein's estate last month. The book was redacted to not show names and faces of women's women and minors, according to the cover letter sent from the Epstein estate's attorneys to the

committee. At the same time, a second entry in the Epstein birthday book released yesterday appears to mention Donald Trump. According to the journal, the page reportedly was compiled by a member at Mar-a-Lago, who included a photo of Epstein and others holding up a giant fake check purportedly from Trump to Epstein

for $22,500. The attached letter jokes, the check was payment for a deal in which Epstein sold Trump a, quote, fully depreciated woman in 2003. Joining us now, the co-hosts of our fourth hour staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, and the host of way too early MSNBC senior Capitol Hill correspondent, Allie Vitale.

So John, the president, the press secretary vehemently saying this is a fake. It's not Donald Trump's signature. She's calling it again, the press secretary, a Democrat hoax, despite the fact that obviously the energy around this Epstein story is coming from conservative and MAGA world podcasters and reporters. and now the Wall Street Journal, which had been all over this story. So this is, again, we've said it now for a couple of months. It's not going away. You now have purportedly, according to the Wall Street Journal, who's matched this signature, Donald Trump's own signature, and a note in the Epstein birthday book.

Yeah, and there was real hopes in the White House that over the August recess, that this story would fade away, that we talk about other things. And we did for a time. The story lost some heat, but it's come back now. And we shouldn't overlook the fact that some of the women involved here, the victims, you had that very powerful, news conference a few days ago and put a real human face to this. It's not just a political story. It's a human tragedy. It's a crime. And yesterday you saw what is the familiar playbook,

just an attempt to deny reality. Just say no, no, no. It's a lie. It's a hoax. It's a witch hunt, whatever it is, without actually offering any evidence to support those claims. In the Wall Street Journal, you know, let's remember the president sued the journal, had members of his administration attacked the journal, basically daring them. Like, show us the evidence here. Well, they did. But let's remember, this isn't something they conjured up. This was in the Epstein estate since 2003. That'd be quite the long game to try to get President Trump if this was indeed a hoax to plant a birthday card more than two decades ago. And the journal did a very good job. One of the defense lines of defense was the White House said, well, the president always signs first and last name.

Well, that's not the case. They presented a number of letters where sometimes it's just Donald. So the signature certainly would appear to match that photograph you just showed with the fake checks. certainly raises some eyebrows. And again, this is a story that even some Republicans are not willing to let go. We saw some vote this week. Right. Joe? Well, I was going to say, Meekin, and of course, the Wall Street Journal, the Murdoch Empire, and the news will get to that in a little bit.

But it is now, again, safely the most conservative, the most powerful conservative media organization on the planet. They are the ones who have broken this story. the ones who have continued reporting on this story. It is Rupert Murdoch's own conservative media empire that is running this. Not Democrats, not a Democratic hoax, not a left wing, CBS News, edit or whatever they would want to say, this is straight out of the Murdoch Empire, all of it. So, Ali Vitale, there are also Republicans involved in appropriations here. What's next on the committee and this case? Well, look, we're looking at the Oversight Committee for what more they have,

but I think it's really instructive the way that Democrats are going to move forward with this investigation, ensuring transparency. It reminds me of why there was such a battle among Democrats for who was going to be the ranking member on the Oversight Committee because there was such a clamoring to throw out business as usual, and instead match the fight that the grassroots progressive base so badly wants to see from Democrats. We talk about that in a bunch of different forums, but this is actually an issue where you see Robert Garcia trying to sort of break the mold of how these committees typically operate by just immediately knowing that they were likely to get this letter in this tranche of documents from the Epstein estate.

It was a very long book, more than 200 pages were expected, but they also knew that this letter was going to be among them and the impact that this kind of letter would have. Because for Democrats on the committee, it's a question of, in this specific instance, Trump's saying that something doesn't exist that people full know, fill well know, does exist. And so they're able now to put it out in full transparency. And it leaves the White House to argue, does the D at the end of Donald Trump's name typically come with a tail after it or not? Is it a first name, not same thing? Like, they're arguing over these really specific things. And the public will be forced to grapple now with whether they buy that or whether they're seeing that Trump is not telling. the truth. I think that's one piece of it for Democrats on the oversight committee. They're also going to go up a little bit later this week to see an unredacted version of that book, sort of a trust but verify piece here to make sure that the redactions in the words of one member were done in good faith. I think that's important. But if you put a pin in the oversight piece of this on Epstein, I just want to make a quick note on the discharge petition, which is sort of the parallel

effort being led by Massey and Kana. There's a question of if they can get to those 218 signatures, but there's an event that's happening tonight, an election in Virginia to replace Jerry Connolly's seat after the congressman passed away just a few weeks ago that will give Democrats likely one more seat if the projections are right, and then ultimately one more signature on that discharge petition. That would bring them to 217.

Two weeks later, there's another election in Arizona to replace the late Congressman Grahalva's seat. Should Democrats win there? That's the 218 signatures that they need on the discharge petition. So we can focus a little less on persuading Republicans on that effort and instead just sort of look at the election calendar as a way that it could potentially bear out the number of signatures, even though that discharge petition isn't likely to move anywhere once it's passed through the House and into the Senate. But just a signposting there. Yeah, that's important. Again, that effort's being led by a Republican, Thomas Massey.

David French, I would point out that Speaker Mike Johnson, the leader of Republicans in the House, of course, when asked about this drawing and the signature from Donald Trump in the episode, birthday book yesterday said, quote, I've been a little busy today. I haven't dialed in on that, but I'm told it's a fake. And that was the end of that for him. Problem for him and for the president in this administration is that even Donald Trump's own longtime supporters are not willing to let this pass so quickly. So how is the MAGA base grappling with Donald Trump has not been convicted of anything or even charged of anything in relation to Jeffrey Epstein? But the fact is they were friends. They did hang out together. There's video. There's notes. We all know that. How do they grapple with that fact? Yeah. The problem that they have here is the number one

rule is still applying to 99% of MAGA, and that number one rule is that Trump really, truly cannot do anything wrong. So what you're seeing here is this weird and confused mess within MAGA is where they're not really aiming so much at Trump himself as aiming at each other and arguing with each other often about how big a deal to make this, how what to do next, and angry at other figures in the Trump administration. And so you're still seeing a lot of these old rules applying that Trump still has all of the Teflon, but you're seeing the cracks in MAGA as MAGA goes after each other over this. Because one of the things you cannot say if you're a defender of Donald Trump is that the Democrats are just making this an issue, because this has been part of American

conversation mainly because of Republicans and MAGA supporters driving this part of the conversation. And then to turn around what gets inconvenient. say, why? This is a distraction. This is a Democratic hoax. That just doesn't fly. So it's dividing MAGA internally, but they're still uniting behind Trump, as they always have. Well, there are Republicans involved with this, MAGA supporters who want answers, and how about the survivors of all of this, who are waiting in the wings, perhaps making their next move any time now, potentially making their own list. It's worth mention. Again, that the second piece of reporting by the Wall Street Journal that Willie mentioned that

second entry in the Epstein birthday book released yesterday, which appears to mention Donald Trump, again, according to the journal, the page was reportedly compiled by a member at Mar-a-Lago, who included a photo of Epstein and others holding up a giant fake check purportedly from Trump to Epstein for $22,500. The attached letter jokes that the check was payment for a deal in which Epstein sold Trump a, quote, fully depreciated woman in 2003. Barbara McQuaid, your thoughts on this, and where do you see this going from a legal perspective? Yes, I found this item even more troubling than the drawing because of what it suggests. Now, of course, it appears that it was created by some member.

It may be a completely fabricated joke. But, you know, people make jokes based on some grain of truth because that's what makes it funny. And so I think it raises a lot of questions. I also think the drawing suggests, you know, the drawing itself is sort of bawdy, but it suggests a close relationship with Trump, if it's authentic, referring to Jeffrey Epstein as his pal and that they have secrets together. So I think it raises a lot of questions. As to where it's going, I am very very.

cognizant of protecting the identities and the privacy of the survivors here. That's very important. I'm even cognizant of protecting the identities of subjects of investigation for whom there was insufficient evidence to charge. But one thing President Trump could do immediately is to say, in an effort to clear my name once and for all, I hereby direct the Justice Department, to disclose every piece of material, whether it's a document, an image, or a video that includes me. Let's put that out there and let's put this scandal to rest. He could do that, but he's not. And why is he not doing it?

I think it is for fear that there are things like this or other things that would cause him embarrassment, if not shame, within his base. Former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuaid, thank you very much. Ali Vitale, thank you for your reporting. We appreciate it. And coming up, President Trump says he wants to clean up Chicago and is blaming Democratic leaders for not wanting to work. with him. We'll play for you those comments. Morning Joe. We'll be right back.

Chicago lawmakers for their unwillingness to work with him. He also railed against cashless bail, a policy he recently signed executive orders against in an effort to eliminate the practice. When you have horrible killings, you have to take horrible actions. And the actions that we take are nothing. This cashless bail started a wave in our country where a killer kills somebody and is out on the street by the afternoon. In many cases, going out and killing again, cashless bail. And you try and reason with people like in Chicago, with the governor and the mayor.

You try and reason with them. And it's like you're talking to a wall. It's just doesn't, I assume it's just a political ideology. They're not stupid people. It must be an ideology that's just buried in their head and you can't do a damn thing about it. And we'd love to go into Chicago and straighten it out. We're waiting for a call from Chicago. We'll fix Chicago.

Let's bring in MSNBC contributor, Mike Barnacle, and professor at Princeton University, Eddie Glaude, Jr. And Joe, a lot of questions around Chicago, especially after hearing Julia Ainsley's reporting. A lot of questions around Chicago, of course, crime continues to be a problem in Chicago. Those numbers have gone down greatly over the past several years. The numbers are still too high if you talk to the governor. I'm sure if you talk to the mayor, they'll tell you those numbers are still too, high, but the cops are doing a great job and moving in the right direction. And it is, it is interesting. I mean, the president talks about cashless bail. I think the majority of Americans will

agree with him. I will say, though, that the Trump administration pushed for and got criminal justice reform near the end of his term. It was unpopular to say, but I said at the time, it's a wrong time to pass criminal justice reform when crime rates are at a 50 or 60 year low. I want to see if politicians will pass it when things are a bit more difficult, and that way you won't have the seesawing back and forth. I know that a lot of politicians in New York City, a lot of politicians around the state. Democrats, as well as Republicans, have been opposed to cashless bail. So the idea that only Republicans are against cashless bail is not the case, certainly not the case even in New York City. But I will say, Mike Barnacle, that the president talking about

getting together with leaders in Chicago, getting together with leaders in Illinois, my gosh, how remarkable would it be if he could actually do that if leaders of Illinois, if the governor of Illinois, governor of Pittsburgh, or if the mayor, could say thank you so much. We appreciate it. Here are the areas where we need more help. We've had funding cut. That's kept our people off the street that have helped prevent crime in some of the worst areas of Chicago. And oh, by the way, is what I would say if I were a Democratic governor or Democratic mayor, how about funding 5,000 more cops for the city of Chicago? We will give them a great salary. We will give them great training, and we will make sure they are from the neighborhoods

that need police officers to protect children in school and walking to school and small business owners. I mean, Americans, I don't know. They might throw a ticker tape parade if you could actually have the White House doing something like that with a Democratic governor or mayor. Well, that's unfortunately, Joe, that's the common sense solution, but this appears not to be dominated by common sense. Police presence is key in all of these cities, in every city. People want to see the police. They want to see the police on their block. What they don't want to see is armed troops on their block. People without arrest powers walking up and down their blocks, the National Guard. Look, in Washington, D.C., they're picking up trash. That's the National Guard. I feel badly for the National

Guard members assigned to this duty. But they... Mike, can I ask you about that? I'm glad you brought that up. Can I ask you how deflating it would be for somebody that signed up to be in the National Guard to protect this country,

to go away from their families to protect and defend the United States of America and they spend their days picking up garbage in parks in part of a beautifying project that the city of Washington can do themselves?

if their budget had not been cut a billion dollars well their budget has been cut the city's budgets are a lot of cities Chicago specifically all big cities are having financial difficulties because their budgets have been cut their fed the federal allotments given to them have been reduced things like that hiring the cops that's the deal you just mention it that's the way to solve this local police local police presence in every major city what's happening now the National Guard, and cities, things like that, this is not normal. This is not normal behavior. It's not normal for people in these cities to see a lack of police presence on their block, but to see perhaps a bunch of guys hopping out of a black SUV, you know, wearing face masks and

scooping up someone who looks like they might be of Latin origin, that looks like they might hang out at Home Depot, who looks like they might be poor, who looks like they might speak Spanish and not English. That's not normal, but all of this is going on in this country every single day. It's not normal. Where are the Democrats to stand up and say, this is not normal behavior? I would say we're the Republicans, too, but... Yeah, also not normal as the president in that post a couple of days ago, Eddie, effectively declaring war on an American city, saying Chicago's about to find out why we call it the

Department of War and that AI generated ironic image, given that was a Vietnam captain. But that's a whole other conversation, the president couldn't find it. way there. But so when we talk about, do you actually want to help? Do you actually want to fight crime or do you want to have a stunt that shows you can go after a Democratic-led city with a Democratic governor and attack crime as a democratic issue? What Joe has been suggesting for weeks now is the smart move, perhaps, if you're that governor or that mayor, is like, we welcome your help. Mayor Bowser has been doing it now in Washington, but this isn't helpful. National Guard troops in neighborhoods that are not.

having problems with crime. It might be a nice photo op for you, but it's not helping our city. So it's that question of, do you actually want to fight crime or do you want to have a political moment? So this is always the danger when you engage in the dallions with Donald Trump, right? He may seem to hold a position that agrees with yours, but he probably is doing it for ends that are not constant with your ends. So he might invoke an issue of crime that harkens back to the 80s and 90s, and you think you are in his circle when, in fact, what he's doing is using crime as a way to expand executive power, to break constitutional norms, to do things that we ought to be very suspicious of, right? So I think it's very important for us to be kind of aware of when we're being co-opted into or being used for purposes that aren't actually consistent with our own values.

So that's the first argument I would make, right? So I don't think Donald Trump gives a damn about crime. I wouldn't expect a felon to give a damn about crime, actually. So I think that's the first thing. The second thing I want to say is that I've been watching the conversation over the last few weeks since we've been talking about Chicago and the like. I don't think a surge of cops is the answer. I actually don't.

As a person who grew up in these communities, when we think about the Supreme Court decision with regards to ICE, that echoes of stop and frisk. This echoes of folk being stopped because of who they are as an effort to stop crime. And what we do know in our communities, they're overly policed and overly surveilled and underprotected, right? And so part of what we have to do is to think about the nature of policing, to begin to offer, I think, a broader conception, a broader idea of safety for communities. And I think once we do that, instead of trying to repeat the 90s, which led to, you know, the expect, mansion of the carceral state, which led to men disappearing from communities, which led to all sorts of horrific encounters with the police, let's think about policing differently

as we try to address an issue of safety, which every community deserves. Does that make sense? It does. Well, but the thing is, you talk about how cops on the streets, won't make a difference. I will tell you that one poll after another has suggested otherwise when you speak to black Americans, when you speak to poorer Americans, there's a Washington Post poll that we've talked about quite a bit over the past several weeks since we talked about additional troops in Washington, D.C. And that is 91% of D.C. residents said that crime was a serious problem. The people that said crime was a very serious problem, overwhelmingly were black residents. Those who said it was not a serious crime, predominantly were white, rich residents,

and the demographic who said that crime was the biggest problem were black women. I go back to 2020 when there were a lot of hipsters talking about defunding the police, a lot of political activist talking about defunding the police. You can find New York Times articles in real time about communities predominantly with people of color in some of the poorest and most dangerous parts of New York City. And their city councilmen and city council women were saying defund the police. What are you talking about? We need more police on the streets. We need more safety officers in our school. We need more police officers making sure our children and our mothers can walk to school and walk to work without being stopped by gang

members. So I guess that's my question back to you when you're speaking generally about this. Are you speaking as an academic? Are you speaking as somebody who reflects these communities who say we live in a dangerous city? I know rich white people in Georgetown may feel more comfortable or in northwest Washington may feel more comfortable, but in southeast, we don't feel more comfortable. We want more cops. No, Joe, I'm not just speaking as an academic. I'm speaking as a black man who has been reared in the United States with a deep-seated suspicion about whether or not police actually are engaged in protecting our communities, right? Having had the talk, right, from a young man, from a young boy. So there's not this relationship to the police

that you're presupposing. And let me just say this, I think. No, no, no, hold on. Hold on, Eddie. I'm not presupposing that, Eddie. I'm not pre-sum. I'm not presupposing anything. I am giving you data. And by the way, are you living the same experience that you're talking about that we've talked about on this show for 18 years with you and Gene Robertson and everybody else? But is your experience in Princeton the same as somebody's In Anacostia? Of course not. Of course not.

There are class differences. Let's talk about the person in anacostia. So part of what I was about to say. The second point I was about to make is that what's consonant with what you're suggesting or what you're saying is that every community desire safety. There are folks who don't want to go to the grocery store and have to deal with crime, the potential of being robbed. Folks who don't want gangs, you know, overrunning their communities.

And so how do you, in the way in which you think about the issue, right? balancing your head the desire for safety and the ongoing suspicion of the way the communities are policed and i think this is so so you don't call for more of the very folk who are policing the communities in a way that's disrespectful that that that seem to that generate the suspicion what is the nature of policing what we're seeing since since since the end of the pandemic are efforts on the part of mayors in baltimore and chicago and the like to change the the way these communities are police to be more targeted in how they think about policing. And that doesn't require a surge of forces as you talk about.

Do you know how one way to do that? Hold on a second. I've got to get in here. I'm sorry. I've got to get in here because I was trying to get in to say that Eddie, every single time we've discussed this issue. We've talked about a couple of things. One, the full funding of the social programs that have been slashed by Republicans, two, giving these residents of southeast Washington and other, I'm sure the south side of Chicago, the police officers that they say that they need, but three, and I think most importantly, what you're talking about, proper training as well as hiring police officers from those communities. That's what's happened over the past 20 years or so.

In New York City, police officers and New York have been priced out of the New York market. So you have people coming in from Long Island, people coming in from Jersey, people coming in from other areas that are having to drive into work and aren't part of those communities. And when there's that disconnect, Eddie, I think that's when we get into big trouble, right? Yeah, of course. I think that's absolutely. You want communities, police by folk who have some sort of organic relationships. to those communities. I'm just thinking this. I'm just thinking this in my head, Joe. We went through. We've been through law and order. We've been through the war on crime. We've experienced all of this and we've seen that it didn't work. But Eddie, I think, I think, I think the disconnect here. Wait, wait, wait. Wait, I'm sorry.

What didn't work. So if the 90s was so. If you talk, if you talk to people that live in New York City, The overwhelming number of people in New York City, if you look at crime rates in the most dangerous parts of New York City, I think there are a lot of people who will say that from 1995 to 2019 when crime was at a 50 year low, things did work and things were a lot safer in their neighborhoods, in some of the worst neighborhoods, the most dangerous neighborhoods than they were in the 1970s and 80s. Would you disagree with that? I would urge everyone to read this wonderful book that was written by James Foreman, Jr., the son of James Foreman, entitled Locking Up Our Own, and the implication of what you've just described, the cost of that experience of safety for black communities across the class strat. So part of what I'm talking about, Joe, is that I'm not denying the desire, the need, right? the right for communities to be safe. I just don't want us to repeat what people experienced in those very communities and across black communities as a result of it.

We're a carceral state for a reason. And I don't want that to be repeated as we draw on the issue of crime to generate another moral panic that will devastate communities. right because he didn't deport the National Guard in southeast he's not trying to protect southeast we understand that right and you guys said it so I'm just I don't want us to repeat this I don't I don't know who you're debating against but I'm just I'm not debating I'm just taking the point you you should you should what you should well the point you are making is a point that we've been making for three weeks so people watching this clip might be very confused by like you

appearing debating us over the very things that we have said I have said a million times, stop patrolling Georgetown, stop having your National Guards people, like in front of the Apple stores, if you're going to do something, work with Mayor Bowser and go to southeast. Go to the places where mothers are begging police officers to come to their neighborhoods to make them safe. Go to the schools where children can't learn the same way that kids in northwest Washington can learn because they fear for their safety. They fear for their life. They fear from gang members. We've been saying, I've been watching them. I heard you say. People that are watching this, I hear you saying, you don't want that, well, we all agree

with you on everything that you say. We all agree with you. So that's why I'm a little confused here. But the point I'm making by repeating it is that Donald Trump doesn't give a damn about crime in this instance in the way in which in the way in which I just described it he doesn't give a damn about crime in fact he's repeating something that's at the heart of the drive around crime that it's not really about protecting those communities it's about protecting certain communities from those communities and it generates a certain orientation of policing and I want us to get at that as we as we call for a surge of cops is that cool and we agree on that what we well I asked you if you've been watching this show, Eddie, because that's all we've been saying.

Not quite. So I'll tell you what, can we agree on that? Actually, you should be reversed to, can you watch our show? Because if you watch our show, you will know that we agree with everything you're saying. You're saying it very passionately, though, and I'm sure people online are going to say, Eddie Glowd sure told Joe, and the morning Joe's set what they've been saying for three and a half weeks, passionately. Joe, he's so bad. He's so bad, because he's been saying it for three weeks.

Joe, let me try. Joe, Joe, I'm serious. Let me try and help here because you started this conversation. You said, this is not about, I want to help the conversation. This is not about more policing. So you started it that way. And Joe never said, or anybody on the other side of this debate, never said, let's bring bad cops into Chicago. It's bring in policing, evolving policing, community policing, improving policing.

Bring in, if you can't say we need more safety on the streets of Anacostia or on the streets of Chicago or the streets wherever there is high crime, good, developing, evolving, ever-improving policing, then you got a problem because people are saying they want that. And I think you kind of flip the conversation to saying we don't need more cops. And a lot of people feel they need more really good, developed police organizations. I think so. This is what I'm the argument I'm making. We need a different conception of policing, but we don't need a surge of cops. That's what I was, that's the, that's the, a surge of police. I don't think the answer to the issue of crime is 5,000 more cops on this.

I just don't believe that's the answer. And we can have an argument around the detail. It depends on whom the cops are. Yeah, okay? I would say this, that what you're talking about, you and Joe and Mika, you're all right. You're all right. The recruitment and training of police going forward is the critical element in safety, in offering public safety to every citizen.

And I want to ask you, when was the last time you saw anyone, a recruiter, coming down to Princeton, who represented a big city police department to try to recruit Princeton students, okay? And they would be offering them the chance to get a Ph.D. in life, if you're a police officer. In New York City, New York City's police department is amazing. Amazing. I think it's represented by people speaking, like, more than 80 different languages in the police department. And you've got to go out and recruit the best. the finest. Just the way the recruiters come in for hedge funds and looking for, you know, private equity people. They go to Princeton and they go to Harvard and they go to Georgetown. Recruiting. You need to allow police departments to recruit and offer them the most attractive

job, go an entry position in a job where you learn about life immediately. Can I say this, don't make it. I want to be very, very clear here. I'm not virtue signaling when I make this argument. I'm not trying to perform for some progressive audience so that I can have my progressive bona fidees as I walk off a morning Joe's set. I'm actually thinking about communities that I care about, people that I love, and the way those communities are policed. That's all I'm thinking about. I think that's a completely different conversation. And so and so, so, so this is, this is, so I don't want what I'm doing here to be read as if I'm performing for some audience out. I can give less than a damn about that. I don't want the moral panic around crime to generate a set of policies that will

devastate communities again. That's what I'm concerned about because the evidence is in that it happened before and it can happen again if we follow what Donald Trump is trying. Joe? Well, I mean, again, that's what we've been saying for the past three weeks. And that's what we've been saying repeatedly that, that as Muriel Bowser said, Washington needs more police officers. Washington's getting more police officers. They're getting paid better. They're getting good training. They're going to be a part of the community. And that's what we need everywhere. You talk about moral panic, though, and I ask you, maybe you should go back and look at the Washington Post poll that shows 91% of Washington residents back in May said crime was a serious problem. And the people apparently most victimized by that crime, black women. So I am not comfortable. Perhaps you are comfortable. I am not comfortable in accusing black women in Washington, D.C., of moral panic. There is a real problem in Washington, D.C., according, not according to rich white people,

because, again, the Washington Post poll showed that rich white people are like, oh, we're doing fine. It was people of color. It was specifically black women who were the most concerned. We've seen that time and again. We saw it during the defund the point. police protest, as I said before. So when you say moral panic, maybe if you're talking about the administration, trying to get white people to be swept into a moral panic, we all certainly agree with certain segments of the president's base on that. But in this case, it does sound when you start talking about moral panic and we don't need more police officers. It does sound, if you don't mind me saying, like you may be being a bit condescending to the 91% of

the people in Washington, D.C., who told pollsters, they don't feel safe, that crime and violence is a serious problem. So that's the only thing I would say. We agree with you on every point. That's thing I've been saying. We've been talking about this now for three weeks. And I think every point that you've said, we've agreed with. So, this is, we're here. We've landed here. Look, I don't, when I talk about moral panic, I'm not trying to condescend to people who are actually living in communities that are unsafe. I want to be very, very clear that every community, no matter their class position, deserves to be safe. Every community. And they want to be. And they want to be. And they want to be. It's just how we talk about it, how it's used for political purposes. And the way

it's used is to mobilize grievances and hatreds for ends that have been devastating. And we just have to be honest about that, it seems to me. Well, and that's what we are here. And that's what we've been talking about this morning, specifically, this morning, the news that Hispanics woke up to that this morning, they can be stopped in Los Angeles or in other cities if ICE looks at them and they're guilty for driving while being Hispanic. They can be stopped. They can be pulled out of a car if they have an accent. Like, oh, I don't know. Certain people close to the president of the United States, if they have an accent, then they're presumed guilty. And yeah, this is something that we're all deeply concerned about, but we're mostly concerned, Eddie, about getting you back

on the show as soon as possible. When can you do it again? The semester started, Joe. Oh, no. Oh, no. Well, enjoy that. We hope you can come back very soon. Professor at Princeton University, and my dear friend, Eddie Glow, Jr. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.